Getting the Jump on Things

Today, just after noon, a woman living in my building tried to jump out of a 10th floor window in order to kill herself. I learned about it because I was on my way back from the first floor residents' lounge to my room on the 12th floor. The head security guard told me in an agitated tone of voice that I couldn't use the elevator because they had a "situation" which required that they commandeer the elevators. So I took the stairs, wondering what kind of situation would prevent residents from being able to use the elevators.

Bad Advice (A Poem)

The following poem isn't intrinsically Christian, but it was inspired recently by some experiences I've had in various churches over the years:

-------------

BAD ADVICE
© Mark Pettigrew

"Don't rock the boat";
a piece of advice
typically offered
to make one think twice ---
Think about saying
what might cause offense,
even if what one says
makes perfect sense!

"Don't rock the boat;
let sleeping dogs lie."
Don't dare to ask,
when it isn't clear why.
Better to yield
to defeat and despair.
Better to act
like you really don't care.

"Don't rock the boat"
is what cowards say.
Problems would fester,
if they had their way.
Some boats need rocking,
whatever folks claim.
Truth's not negotiable.
Life's not a game.

-------------

Jesus was a boat rocker. He said things which made people uncomfortable, as had John the Baptist before him. Both of them were eventually killed on account of what they said. But they spoke the truth.

The same thing could be said about many noteworthy Christians over the years, such as Martin Luther and Martin Luther King.

Unfortunately, such courage and truthfulness is in short supply today among Christians who claim to be followers of Jesus.

Loyalty, Disloyalty and Dissent

The May 11-18 issue of Newsweek has an essay and a book excerpt by Richard N. Haas, who worked in both Bush administrations. In the essay entitled "The Dilemma of Dissent," Haas acknowledges that dissent is sometimes seen as a sign of disloyalty by leaders, but he makes a case for the idea that that isn't necessarily the case.

Dissent has been hailed as noble and necessary by our leaders. None other than President Dwight Eisenhower said that Americans should "never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." Fomer senator William J. Fulbright declared, "In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith."

He continues, on page 34:

Speaking truth to power is actually a form of loyalty. It is the best and at times only way to make sure that government (or any organization) lives up to its potential.

I agree; and I think that the aforementioned quotation would certainly be applicable to the local church (which would fall under the categorical heading of "any organization").

Pastors have a tendency to assume that criticisms of their policies or their actions are tantamount to attacks against them or their churches. But that's an unfair assumption to make, inasmuch such criticisms are sometimes motivated by a desire to see those churches and their pastors live up to their potential.

It's a shame that so many of our churches are led by egotistical pastors who act as if disagreement with them is synonymous with disagreement with God. There are exceptions, thankfully, but it seems to me on a purely subjective level (based on personal experiences) that such humble Christian leaders are getting harder and harder to find.

I remember one pastor saying the following from the pulpit, roughly 20 years ago (when I attended that pastor's church in southwest Missouri): "The church is not a democracy." That was his response to people who had the audacity to think that they ought to have a voice in church policies, in spite of the fact that they weren't part of that church's privileged "inner circle".

When he said that, I was tempted to reply, "No, but neither is it a dictatorship." I suspect (based on his leadership style) that if I had replied in that manner, he would have begged to differ.

Humility is an essential aspect of discipleship. How do such pastors expect to teach humility to others, if they do not lead by example?

Good and Bad Things About Megachurches

Some of my earliest memories pertain to the tiny country churches where my father, a professional optometrist, served as a Methodist "lay minister" (back in the sixties, shortly before a merger caused that denomination to change its name to the United Methodist Church). There really weren't many "megachurches" in those days, if any, but even by the standards of that time period, the churches where my father preached were incredibly small churches.

Over the years, I've watched as local churches have developed and expanded, to the point that some of them now have to meet in sports arenas or in buildings of comparable size. Or they may have four or five church services every Sunday. Or they may have numerous "satellite" churches which serve various communities throughout the city. Or all of the above, in some cases.

On one level, I think it's great that there are churches which have experienced that level of success. There are definite benefits associated with such growth, such as the fact that larger churches have considerably more resources with which to put on presentations which can compete in terms of quality (to some extent) with the secular concerts and other events which increasingly compete for the attention of their friends and neighbors. I think there's a lot more that could be done in order to achieve that goal (particularly in terms of remuneration of the musicians and others who are involved with such presentations, so that those people can afford music instruments and other related expenses which will enable them to achieve their full potential), but there's no question that the presentations already being offered at many megachurches are extremely impressive in comparison with the types of presentations which were once common in traditional churches.

In theory, such churches should also have far more resources with which to deal with crises (particularly economic crises) which affect the lives of their members. Unfortunately, the theory doesn't always match the reality.

That's just one aspect of the megachurch phenomenon which bothers me tremendously. Another aspect is the tendency of the leaders of such churches to develop supersized egos which can make it very difficult for them to humbly accept criticism. This can lead to some abusive situations, some of which have been documented in several well-known books.

There are different levels of abuse, of course. Most churches don't become as abusive as the infamous cult which was led by Jim Jones, and which led to the mass suicide of most of his followers at Jonestown in Guyana. But even lower levels of abuse can lead to a substantial diminution of the pleasure which ought to be associated with being involved in a church.

When I use the word "pleasure" here, I should hasten to specify that I am not talking about worldly or carnal pleasure. I am talking about the legitimate satisfaction which comes from believing that one is genuinely loved by one's fellow Christians. I am talking about the satisfaction which comes from believing that God is using one's association with other local believers in order to accomplish his purpose on earth. People who attend churches which are devoid of those types of pleasure and satisfaction are being cheated out of what is rightfully theirs. No one should go to church solely for the purpose of receiving benefits, but it is equally true that no one should feel more drained and dissatisfied after leaving church than they felt before they came.

Megachurches also tend to foster a sense of isolation and distance from one's leaders, and that sense of isolation further exacerbates the tendency to place such leaders on a pedastal. No one should feel intimidated by the thought of inviting his or her pastor to dinner, but some Christians do indeed feel that way. A certain amount of delegation is necessary in any large church, but it can become excessive. When one has to get on a waiting list and wait for several months in order to sit down and have a personal discussion with the lead pastor of one's church, then something is seriously wrong with that church. There is a difference between a preacher and a pastor, and one of those differences is that a pastor is accessible!

In megachurches, it's easy for people in leadership positions to get the attitude that they have no real need to resolve conflicts or address problems within those churches, because it's no big deal if people leave on a regular basis because they're dissatisfied with the way that they're being treated. After all, there are always new people where those people came from. It's like there's a revolving door on many megachurches. If you dare to voice a complaint or criticism, you're likely to hear a subtle version of the old statement, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" People with unusual needs are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing. Such people are often denied a voice because their needs are considered unimportant relative to the needs of the majority of those who are relatively satisfied with the status quo.

Is it possible for a church (or a parachurch ministry) to experience phenomenal growth without becoming impersonal and insensitive to the needs of all of its members? Yes, I believe that such a thing is possible, but it's uncommon. It requires leaders who actively cultivate personal humility, and who guard against the temptations which are inherent in such growth by resolutely determining that their churches will not become victims of their own success.

With Churches, It Pays To Be Selective

Recently I was speaking with my mother, and the subject of church came up. I had told her a few weeks earlier that I'd begun attending church again, after discovering a local congregation which seemed to show some promise. My mother is very devoted to her church, and she knows that I share her faith in Christ, so she has always strongly urged me to commit myself to a local congregation of believers.

In principle, I agree that that's a worthy goal. The problem is that finding a church which meets my criteria has been easier said than done. During my phone conversation with Mother last week, I revealed to her that my investigations had revealed that the latest church I'd visited didn't meet my most important criteria. I could hear the disappointment in her voice when she learned that I'd decided not to make that my home church.

Frankly, she wasn't half as disappointed as I was. I'd been without a church for a while, and I'd been hoping that this group I'd recently discovered was the one for which I'd been looking. But I have been to enough churches in my life, both good and bad, to know that it's a big mistake to pick a church randomly out of the phone directory and then make a commitment to that church before one really has any idea what one is committing one's self to. Life is too short to spend Sunday after Sunday after Sunday in a church which poorly reflects one's own values or which does a poor job of empowering one to fulfill God's call upon one's life. So when I start attending a new church, I tend to take a very "proactive" approach designed to help me ascertain as soon as possible whether or not the church is worthy of a long-term commitment. That means asking a lot of questions and then asking myself if I can live with the answers I receive.

When Mother spoke with me, she advised me to bloom where I was planted. But even though that advice sometimes has merit (in situations where people have no choice about where they have been planted), it's somewhat disingenuous when it comes to one's choice of a church to attend. After all, the only thing which "planted" me at the aforementioned church was that I decided to attend the church in the first place. There were no family issues or other things binding me to that particular church. It seems a bit absurd to me to say that it's O.K. for me to exercise my free will by choosing to attend the church, but not O.K. for me to go in search of a church which better meets my needs if it turns out, upon investigation, that the church doesn't offer the things which I seek.

When seeds or plants are planted in dry soil which lacks the nutrients they need, they don't "bloom". They die!!! I don't deny that there were some good aspects of the church I most recently attended. Otherwise, I never would have returned in order to attend a second service. But I was looking for some specific things which were extremely important to me. Unfortunately, I learned after several weeks that they weren't prepared to offer those things to me.

Many people would argue that "there is no such thing as a perfect church". Well, duhhh! Of course there isn't. People, even redeemed people, are imperfect, and probably always will be imperfect, this side of heaven. But what bothers me is when true statements are misappropriated in order to support false dichotomies.

It doesn't follow from the fact that churches are all imperfect that one ought to refrain from exercising discernment when selecting a church. That's the kind of gullible mentality which led people to feel as if they had to keep attending Jim Jones' cultish church (The People's Temple) even after it had become abundantly clear that the guy had become psychologically and spiritually unhinged. The tragic results, it seems to me, speak for themselves.

Not every church is as cultish or abusive as The People's Temple, but there are a lot of churches which are abusive in subtle ways, even though their doctrinal statements may look great on paper. They may have great music and great preaching, but those aren't the only things which are needed in order to make for a great church experience.

Churches are all imperfect, but it is possible (albeit difficult) to find churches which are good enough to justify long-term commitments to them. I know, because I have attended such churches in the past.

If a person is attending a church where getting up in the morning to go to the worship service feels like a dreary chore which is performed out of obligation and nothing more, then there's something seriously wrong, because church was never meant to be that way. Jesus said it well: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Legalistic observations of the Sabbath can defeat the purpose of the Sabbath, which is to strengthen believers and equip them for lives characterized by joyful service to God. If that goal is not being accomplished, then the value of such regular observations is highly questionable.

The problem is that there's a mentality among many Christians to the effect that Christians who are unwilling to settle for spiritually unfruitful relationships, and who regularly change church homes in search of things they haven't yet found, are somehow selfish and undisciplined.

I understand where they got that idea. There are admittedly some Christians who leave churches over issues which are utterly trivial. The color of the carpet, for instance. Such people are undoubtedly responsible for the phrase which some Christian coined several decades ago: "Church hoppers".

But individual situations should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of generalities which may or may not be applicable to those particular situations. I happen to think that the criteria with which I decide whether or not to continue attending a particular church are biblically defensible and extremely important.

Some people may disagree, and that's their prerogative. But it should be remembered that different people have different needs, and therefore different priorities.

For example, if I had children, it is likely that I would be looking for a church with a dynamic children's ministry which would protect and nurture my children, and which would teach the gospel to them in a way which would maximize the likelihood that they would commit themselves to Christ in a way which would motivate them to make the world a better place. But I don't have children, and the way things are looking, it seems unlikely that I ever will have children of my own, for the simple reason that it seems unlikely that I will ever get married. (Not that I wouldn't like to get married! But the older I get, the less likely that seems to happen. I'm just as selective when it comes to women as I am when it comes to churches.) So while I think that every church ought to have a great ministry to children, it isn't as important to me, personally, as it would be if I had a wife and children.

Some people greatly prefer a small church, and other people greatly prefer a big church. I have no real preferences in terms of what size of church makes me comfortable, but the size of the church can be a relevant consideration when it comes to some of my other criteria. Small churches tend to be a lot friendlier, and pastors there tend to be a lot more accessible, but the downside is often the fact that such churches don't have much in the way of material resources. That might not matter much if I were just looking for a place to worship, but I'm also looking for a church which can help me to accomplish some specific goals in my life. And that requires a church with substantial resources.

The trouble is that pastors of large churches tend to be very inaccessible. They sometimes unintentionally or intentionally convey the idea that individuals who attend their churches are somewhat expendable and unworthy of individual attention and consideration, unless those individuals are part of a very limited "inner circle" consisting mostly of staff members or people who have attended the church for a very long time.

But that's mostly a matter of attitude, and attitudes aren't carved into stone. I think that it's possible to pastor a large church which has abundant resources without becoming egotistical or isolated from the people who attend that church. It's rare, but it's possible. So I guess that if I had my choice, I'd say that I'd prefer to attend that kind of church.

Having said that, I'd rather attend a small church where people have all of the right attitudes and values than to attend a large church where their contrary attitudes and values stand in the way of my ability to achieve my life's goals. Lots of material resources are nice, but they don't do a whole lot of good if one can't utilize them.

In terms of theology, I am pretty conservative. Of course, that word means different things to different people. What it means for me is that the scriptures are far more important than "traditions of men". For too many churches today, the scriptures are only of peripheral concern --- and this, ironically, includes some churches where they give lip service to the idea that the scriptures are of paramount importance.

Where the scriptures speak clearly about issues, then it seems to me that really sincere Christians have no choice but to accept their authority and do their best to comply with their demands. This doesn't mean, however, that there will be no legitimate disagreements about what the scriptures teach and demand. The Bible is a marvelous book, and that's an understatement. But that doesn't mean that it's always 100% clear how a particular scriptural teaching should apply to us. Some people do a better job of properly interpreting scriptures (in the context in which they were written) than others. ("Exegesis" is the fancy technical term for such interpretation. The Bible itself calls it "rightly dividing the Word of God".) So it seems to me that all Christians ought to have the humility to make every effort to explain their policies and practices in the light of their understanding of the scriptures, and to listen with sincerity to those who might disagree with them on specific points.

Ideally, people would always agree with one another, but this is not an ideal world. Sometimes, when it comes to secondary issues, the best option is to agree to disagree. At other times, though, it's important to have some backbone and take a stand against immorality. Far too many liberal churches today have allowed the culture to shape them, instead of accepting the responsibility to shape the culture in positive ways which reflect values derived from the Word of God.

To many people, stylistic matters (pertaining to preaching styles, music styles, liturgical styles and so forth) are of paramount importance. I have worshiped in a wide variety of environments, some of which were very formal and some of which were very informal. I do have my preferences, of course. I generally tend to prefer a more informal type of service, because I have seen the way in which liturgy can become so stale that no real spiritual encounters with God are facilitated. But I've also seen how informality can be abused in a way which props up the egos of the people who lead such services, so that's the flip side.

Even though I might have my preferences, I would say that such matters are relatively low on my list of priorities, unless they impact the freedom which I have to use my own talents in service to God. How might that happen? Well, in one case, I was told in no uncertain terms that the pastor of the church I was attending at the time had no tolerance for any musical performances which did not involve the performance of hymns. No jazz allowed! I knew of no relevant scriptures which would justify such a position, so it seemed to me that the pastor in question was simply imposing his personal aesthetic preferences on the rest of the congregation, with no biblical justification. I felt hamstrung by the realization that as long as I attended that church, I would never have the opportunity to make the most of my musical talents during a worship service, or during any other church event for that matter. To me, that was more than reason enough to leave that church and continue my search for a church which would appreciate what I had to offer.

If I had to list my highest priorities when selecting a church to attend on a regular basis, I think I would list the following things:

1. A strong commitment to the proclamation of the whole gospel of Jesus Christ, with a foundation in the scriptures. This includes the willingness to speak out clearly against sin (even when it's "politically incorrect" to do so) and to make it very clear to people that those who reject Christ's salvation are lost.
2. A strong commitment to the need for social justice and compassion --- not based on Marxist presuppositions, but based on Christ's teachings, which make it very clear that we have obligations in terms of ministering to hurting people and victims of injustice, such as prisoners, sexual abuse victims, poor people, minorities, unborn children and so forth.
3. A strong commitment to the necessity of cultural transformation --- not cultural accommodation, and not withdrawal from involvement and engagement with mainstream culture. In particular, I feel that it's important to recognize the dominant role which the arts play in terms of shaping the values of our friends, neighbors, coworkers and relatives. Churches which have little interest in the arts have abdicated their cultural responsibilities. If they aren't empowering artistically talented Christians, artistically talented unbelievers with entirely different agendas will be more than happy to step in and fill the cultural void.
4. A strong commitment to the goal of empowering all Christians to fully utilize their God-given talents --- thereby fulfilling their biblical responsibilities --- and to leave lasting legacies which will validate the time which they have spent living on this earth.

The preceding list isn't all-inclusive, of course. But it ought to give a good idea of what I'm seeking in a church. Such a church isn't easy to find, but I keep looking, because I am convinced that God has a calling on my life. I cannot fulfill that calling without substantial help from brothers and sisters who share my values, goals and priorities.

When Pastors Become Bullies

During the years since I became a Christian in 1969, I have heard many arguments against the existence of God, and many arguments against the legitimacy of Christianity. I still haven't heard anything to persuade me that I made the wrong decision when I committed my life to Christ. But my faith has been tested on many occasions. One of the primary causes of such tests has been the hypocrisy I have often seen in the Church, particularly among its leaders.

One area in which hypocrisy often seems to exist is in the area of spiritual authority. More than a few pastors have been known to quote scriptures out of context in order to create an oppressive atmosphere within the local church in which they have been able to rule the flock like little self appointed emperors. They seem to be under the impression that when Jesus told Peter to "feed the flock", he really intended to tell Peter to bully the flock!

Dare to criticize such a pastor in any way, and you are likely to hear about how awful it is to "touch God's anointed". These egomaniacal so-called "leaders" interpret scriptures in such a way that it becomes virtually impossible for ordinary people within the church to criticize or hold their leaders accountable for anything. No wonder we Christians have been forced to deal with so many public scandals which have brought shame to the Body of Christ.

I find it interesting to reflect upon what it was about Jesus that caused people to acknowledge his authority in their lives, because it bears very little resemblance to the actions of many people who claim to speak in Christ's name.

Jesus came to this earth with the heart of a servant, even though he had no obligation whatsoever to do so. He washed the feet of the disciples in order to demonstrate that the sign of a truly godly leader is compassion and humility. He said that much would be required of those to whom much had been given. In short, He saw leadership as a responsibility, not as a free pass to say and do whatever one wanted to say or do.

Sadly, that lesson seems to have passed right over some people's heads.

For people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in churches where one or more of their "leaders" lack the humility and compassion which all good Christian leaders ought to have, and also for those deluded individuals who think that being placed into a position of authority within the church entitles them to ride roughshod over the feelings of those who attend their churches, I have a couple of book recommendations (both of which are for books which I bought at the bookstore for Moody Bible Institute here in Chicago):

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen (Bethany House Publishers)

Churches That Abuse by Ronald M. Enroth (Zondervan)