Give me your expert opinion so I can ignore it.

First, three stories…

A close friend of mine once told me a story about someone they knew who had been an alcoholic for over 30 years.  After a number of precipitating events this person finally sought out treatment.  But a week later the alcoholic’s spouse cancelled all of the treatment appointments because the treatment facility “didn’t know what they were doing.”  Apparently, the spouse knew much more than the treatment providers, and the fact that it hadn’t worked for the past 30 years was irrelevant.

One of my college roommates was struggling in a literature class.  He took his paper over to one of the academic counselors (we used to call them tutors) to get help with the paper.  The academic counselor gave him some advice on making his thesis a little more clear and cleaning up the grammar a bit.  My roommate came back from the meeting frustrated.  He refused to make any changes to his paper thinking that the academic counselor was just being nitpicky.  Several days later he got a disappointing surprise when his paper came back with a low grade.  The professor had marked him down for grammatical errors and an unsupported thesis.

I once visited someone who was in the hospital after having a heart episode (not quite a heart attack, but close).  The funny thing is, when I arrived at the hospital I couldn’t find him.  He wasn’t in his room, anywhere in the unit, and the nurse didn’t have any record of him going in for a procedure.  After a few minutes he came walking down the hall in his hospital gown.  He had visited the patient courtyard for a smoke.  During our time together that morning I couldn’t help but point out the recommendation form the doctor had given him the day before, which recommended that he change his diet, start exercising, and quit smoking.  He was also given a prescription for medication.  “You gonna listen to any of this?” I asked.  “Probably not,” he said.  He didn’t even attempt to quit smoking, change his diet or begin exercising.  He never even had the prescription filled.  It wasn’t even a year before he had a full blown heart attack.  But at least he was honest.

What do all three of these stories have in common?  First, they all actually happened.  Second, they’re pretty universal.  Most of you can relate to having experienced a situation similar to at least one of these, if not all of them.  And third, they are all metaphors for churches.

Many churches have internal issues that hold them back.  Although occasionally the internal issues stem from the clergy leadership in place, that’s not usually the issue.  Usually the internal issues have very little to do with who the pastor is.  Evidence of this is readily available in congregations that have had numerous pastors in the last few decades and the same problems have perpetuated throughout their duration.

So congregations in this situation do what they do best: fire the pastor or get the pastor to leave.  “Then,” they say, “we can get a GOOD pastor in here who can fix all this.”  In an obvious avoidance of responsibility they look for a new pastor.  And get one…another one.

The intensity of their situation demands someone highly skilled, so they set out with exacting requirements. 

They need someone who is experienced in overcoming conflict.  They need someone who can bring in young families and kids.  They need someone who is an outstanding preacher and teacher.  They need someone who is experienced in counseling.  They need someone who is a strong administrator.  They need someone who is skilled in grief and crisis care.

So they set out, looking for someone who has the right education, the right skills, the right qualifications.  And then they hire that person.

And they promptly ignore everything their new “good” pastor has to say.

Years of decline and pastoral turnover take their toll and the leadership of the church begin to get desperate.  “There must be someone out there who can help us fix all this!” they say.  And someone in the denominational leadership who has great intentions of helping them understand and take ownership of their internal problems recommends that they hire a consultant.

They are reluctant at first.  But they are also desperate.  So they finally pony up tens of thousands of dollars to bring in a consultant.  And they do their research.  They hire a consultant who is an “expert” in their particular areas of struggle.

The consultant comes in with a host of surveys, a schedule of meetings and interviews, and lots of other tools to analyze the situation.  The time finally comes and the consultant gives them a list of recommendations.  The consultant, being faithful to do the job thoroughly, has noticed the internal issues and makes recommendations geared towards substantive institutional change.

And sometimes the congregation totally ignores the recommendations they’ve just paid tens of thousands of dollars for.  Other times the congregation gets the list of recommendations and follows through with some of the smaller, easier issues, but ignores the ones that might be hard, expensive, or time-consuming.

It seems many congregations go to their pastors or consultants and say, “Give me your expert opinion…so I can ignore it.”

The question this brings to mind is, “Why?”

Why bother hiring a pastor with the right education and training if everything they say is going to just be ignored?  Why bother paying tons of money to hire a consultant if everything they recommend is just going to be ignored?

That makes about as much sense as smoking during your hospital stay, going to the doctor and refusing to take the medication you’re prescribed, going to a tutor and refusing to make corrections on your paper, or going in for treatment and refusing to listen because your decades of addiction have made you an expert on sobriety.

Why bother?

We bother because we want things to be different, but we don’t want to do anything different.

We want to experience the benefits of things being fixed, but we don’t want to fix anything substantive about ourselves.

We want a scapegoat, someone to blame our failures on rather than take responsibility for them and learn from them.

We want to see change, but not be changed.

The Long-Awaited Response

This fall I was honored to participate in Spencer Community Theatre's production of Jesus Christ Superstar.  I was even more honored to be cast in the role of Judas, which was very challenging vocally, theatrically, artistically, emotionally, and spiritually.  I found the production to be very profound and engaging.  Despite the controversy the rock opera has generated throughout the years, it continues to draw crowds wherever it is performed, and for good reason.  Every night we performed this show people walked out deeply touched, many crying. Even the actors would shed tears (real ones, not stage tears) as Jesus' body was carried down from the cross. 

Most importantly, the show engaged our theological thinking.  Playing the different characters forced us to consider their motivations, their hearts, and their minds.  Both Christians and non-Christians alike were openly discussing deep theological questions about Jesus.  Some began thinking about Jesus for the first time years, others for the first time ever.  I don't think a single cast or crew member would take exception if I said every single one walked away from the production much closer to Jesus.

This past Friday (Dec. 2) a Baptist pastor in our community published an article of condemnation upon all who participated in or even watched the production.  I was granted the opportunity to publish a letter to the editor in the issue coming out on Dec. 6.  It wasn't easy to keep my response to 250 words as they requested.  In fact, it was impossible.  Unfortunately, the online version of the article is not available without a subscription, but if you have a subscription you can find it here.  But since I own the letter to the editor, I can publish it here.

Corrections for Josh Davenport

Last Friday Josh Davenport wrote an article harshly criticizing Jesus Christ Superstar.  There were several falsehoods in his article.  Davenport most blatantly erred attributing to Jesus the words, “I’ll never ever know why you chose me for your crime, your foul, bloody crime.  You have murdered me! You have murdered me!”  These words were actually sung by Judas.  Davenport also criticized the opera for depicting Jesus as unwilling to go to the cross, which also is not true.  In the opera Jesus sends a reluctant Judas to betray him, showing his willingness to go to the cross. Jesus’ only hesitation is in the Gethsemane scene, and is scripturally correct.  Mark 14:36 is evidence that Jesus did not wish to undergo his human suffering but surrendered himself to God’s plan anyway.  Davenport further misled readers by saying the opera depicts Jesus as “just a man.”  Certain characters do doubt Jesus’ divinity: Judas, Herod, the Priests, and Pilate. This actually aligns with the biblical accounts. 

Superstar was never intended as a historical depiction.  It has always been billed as an artwork intended to provoke our thoughts about the deep theological issues surrounding Jesus.  During the production Christians and non-Christians alike discussed questions about Jesus they may never have had the opportunity to ask otherwise.  I personally witnessed several people draw closer to Jesus through their involvement in this production.  For that there is no condemnation. 

I must say that there are parts of Davenport’s article about which we agree, most importantly:  Jesus is the Savior, the Risen Lord!  However, I believe thoughtful consideration of other views is not anti-Christ-ian or blasphemous as Davenport asserts.  Consideration of other views actually leads most to a stronger, deeper faith.  A faith that cannot risk asking questions is a truly insecure faith. 

Richard Mouw on Romney and Mormonism

Last week a prominent SBC pastor in Texas demanded his congregation cast their votes for Rick Perry rather than Mitt Romney (apparently Obama wasn't on the list of possibilities) because Romney is a Mormon. 

Today, Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, gives a very good response.  It's good to see a prominent Evangelical speaking highly of ecumenical relationships.  As expected, Mouw stops short of completely validating Mormonism, but he does bring a bit of sense to the discussion, citing the genuine devotion to Christ he has seen in Mormon leaders he has worked with.  Read about it here.

Around the blogroll...

Kirk shares some wisdom about sensitive conversations.

Derek dreams of killing church committees.

Pete invites us to drift.

Mark explains the difference between our ideas and the ideas we think we have.

Bill thinks he can dance.

Do you deny the resurrection?

I haven't followed Peter Rollins all that long, but when his book "The Orthodox Heretic" came out I immediately fell in love with his provocational style. His methodology for writing and speaking tweaks the pressure points of the religious in order to get us to see ourselves and our faith in a different light. I stumbled across this clip recently.

Hip Hop History Part II

Good stuff here from Jimmy Fallon & Justin Timberlake.



Click here if you can't see the video.

Dear Abby Gets It Wrong on Church Conflict

I’m not normally someone who reads the “Dear Abby” column, but yesterday as I was waiting on a pizza to cook, I picked up the paper and there it was.

Someone wrote in to Abby complaining about the pastor.  They said he preaches at people and uses his pulpit to bully them around.  Here's the link.

In response, Abby told them the appropriate action was not to talk to the pastor directly, but to go over his head and take it to the governing body of the church.  If that failed, she said, they should “consider finding another ‘flock’ to join.”

Now, since Dear Abby is not a church scholar, not a biblical scholar, or anything else that would usually give her credence to be taken seriously, I would normally cut her some slack.  But since she has more than “110 million” readers each day, a response might be more worthwhile than expected.

Sooo….here goes!

First, let me say that it is altogether possible and actually highly likely that the pastor is doing exactly what the reader says he is.  I have had my fair share of run ins with bully pulpits and preachers who use less-than-loving tactics.  But even if that is true, Dear Abby’s advice is still wrong and should not be heeded by Christians.

Why?

There are several other scenarios that are also equally plausible in this situation.  It is possible that the pastor is not who the reader says he is and that the reader is just looking for an excuse to leave.  This happens all the time.  Many good preachers have been branded as bully pulpiteers for preaching things their parishioners don’t want to hear.  It happened to the prophets.  It happened to Jesus.  And it still happens to faithful preachers today.

It is also likely that this readers’ characterization is somewhat true, but that the pastor does not realize the way his sermons are coming across.  If the reader then heeds Dear Abby’s advice, he’s already been crucified before his governing body before he even knows what’s going on or has a chance to do anything about it.

And, as I said above (it needs repeating), even if the reader’s characterization is true, Dear Abby’s advice is still wrong.

Here’s why:

In the context of the Christian community Christ’s teachings and principles outweigh our emotional reactions.  Jesus says to us: “If your brother sins against you…” (Matthew 18: 15-17).

And if we follow Jesus’ teachings we find there is a four step approach for addressing conflicts in the Christian community.

First, we take our issue to our offender face-to-face, privately.  We all save face if we can work out our grievances in private.  Of course, I understand there are situations where this cannot be done, such as in abuse situations, but in issues such as the presenting case face-to-face private conversation is the first step.  The reader who wrote in should talk to their pastor privately first with the intention not of condemnation, but with the intention of working things out.

Second, if that doesn’t work, we take a wise church leader or two with us.  When we sit down again to discuss the situation there are trusted people there to hold us accountable to each other and to help us understand each other.  If the face-to-face meeting doesn’t work, an Elder or two, respected and trusted leaders in the church should be sought out.  Triangulation is not the key here.  The role of these two is not to take sides, but to mediate and to seek resolution and peace.  The pastor and the parishioner have another chance, this time with help, to resolve their differences.

Third, if neither of those steps produces resolution we take it before the governing body of the church.  Notice, this is the THIRD step in the process, not the first step as Dear Abby recommends.  And again, the motive in this step is still not condemnation.  If the person runs first to the board as Abby says, they do so without communication, without understanding, and without patience.  They go to the board with emotional motivations, hoping to rake the pastor over the coals rather than resolve the issue.  Instead, as a third step the governing body is sought out to bring about the collective wisdom of the community and a much-hoped-for resolution to the conflict.

Fourth (notice the third step was not the last!), if all else fails we “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matt. 18:17).  Now here’s where it gets tricky.  We would normally assume this means we’re to part ways at this point, but we must pay attention to context!  This teaching was issued by Jesus.  So we have to ask: How did Jesus treat pagans and tax collectors?  If we are honest we find that he reached out to them, he sent his followers to reach out to them, he dined with them, he offered forgiveness and healing. 

Does this mean there’s never a situation where a preacher should be fired for using a bully-pulpit?  No, of course it does not.  There are situations where the person refuses to address their behavior and it negatively outweighs the faithfulness to the Gospel demands upon the congregation.  But it does mean it should be a LAST resort.  It means love should be the ethic in which we resolve our differences.  It means resolution, not restitution, should guide our decisions in times of church conflict.  And it means we have to approach our conflict with the conviction that God’s desire to forgive and unite us, as expressed in Jesus’ self-giving death on the cross, outweighs any emotional desires we may have.

And finally, finding another flock, as Dear Abby recommends, is almost never the answer.  If we cannot forgive each other and find a way to restore our relationships we give a very poor testimony to the power of Christ.  In all likelihood the reader is going to choose another church and find out that there are things they don’t like there, either.  So they’ll have to start looking again…and again…and again.  Disbanding, severing the bonds of the Christian community, gives false witness to the power of Christ.

So here’s my advice to “All Fire and Brimstone”:  Stop reading Dear Abby.  She doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about.  If you have a question about etiquette or how to handle conflict in the church, a newspaper columnist should not be your first choice for seeking advice (it should seem rather obvious!).  First, consult the scriptures.

And here’s my advice to Dear Abby: Since you obviously don’t know what the Bible says about handling conflict in the Christian community, and since you obviously don’t give advice based on the principles that guide the Christian community, stop giving advice on Christian community.  Really, it’s for everyone’s sake, including your own.  How awful would it be to have your reputation further tarnished in getting called out by those who aren’t syndicated!

Note: Neither the reader, nor Dear Abby, explicitly stated that it was a Christian church community.  This assumption is totally mine.  But I based that assumption on the fact that Dear Abby is a column that is Western, and particularly American, and on the language used.  “Pastor,” “Fire and Brimstone,” and “Bully Pulpit” are all pretty exclusive to Christian circles. Additionally, it most other religious traditions in America there is not nearly as much freedom  to simply go join another congregation.  There may not even be other congregations of that particular faith in the given community.  Church shopping and swapping is a particularly American Christian phenomenon for the most part.