Church

Where are the white hats?

2 Comments

Right before our eyes, the church has been changed.  Once the church was considered a positive in any community.  In the early days of the West, a church was built before a school.  It was the place to be a part of the community.  It was a place where help could be found.  It was a place that was thought only as a good thing.  But today, I have seen a change.  The church has become typecast as something entirely different.

The church is pictured in the press, social media, and entertainment as an antagonist to progress.  For the casual non-believer, it is not unreasonable to view the church as actively working against advances to science, healthcare, education, politics, art, foreign policy, sexuality, and gender identity and equality.  The church is perceived as a detriment to all that is new, modern, contemporary, and understanding.  And the very institution of the Church only seems to stand up and say something is when it is against something.  Shouts of “don’t do that, don’t think that, don’t say that, don’t drink that, and don’t vote for that” is the new normal.

The church has become that anti-character or the antagonist on the world stage. The response to this typecasting is a gentle whisper.  “We can’t compromise on our values,” is the common answer from the church.  I am not saying we need to change the values of the church but to change the perception by doing something else.  That something else is to reclaim our role as a protagonist.  Become the good guy.  We need heroes, white hats, open arms, and open hearts.  No condemnation, no judgment; simply become more than a hard wall of an unbending standard.  We need to direct our attention and our zeal and our efforts to the provision of love.

We need to be a place of non-judgmental acceptance in our community.  A place where the lonely find a smile instead of a ruler.

We need to be a place where the hungry are fed and not set roadblocks.

We need to provide a place of safety.  A place of hope.  A place of fresh starts.  A place of vision.  A place where you are more likely to be mentored than taught.  A place where you are welcome in my home.  A place to share a meal and a hug.  The church is to provide a compelling vision of a better life than to coerce them into a superficial deistic moralism.  A church where you are never threatened, ensnared or bullied.  Instead, it is a place where you are pointed, challenged, exampled and released to make your own decision.

When Charlie Rose was interviewing Steve Martin about his life as an actor, he asked: “what is the best advice for new and aspiring entertainers?”  Steve Martin replied, “Be so good they can’t ignore you.”

We need a better agent to cast the church into a better role.  Not one of the bad guy wanting to steal the cattle and run away with the heroine, but the guy in the white hat that the whole community rallies around to reclaim the town.

What do you think?

Life, Worship

God with us

There are many types of communication available to us today.  Our attention is has been driven to the screen.  Big screens in theaters with surround sound have become the norm.  There seem to be a cold war on the size of our home TV with the largest and highest resolution monsters are the price of the war.  Even our computers have large screens.  Laptops have almost replaced the desktop but still, the screen is the important part. Phones have all but become ubiquitous in everyone’s pocket or purse.  My generation was a generation of the page. But now the younger generation doesn’t seem to have time for a real page-turner of wood pulp; generation of the screen.  All these screens have become the communication medium of choice.

Even in church, the pew bible has been replaced by overhead screens.  Even more and more the church shows up with their bible on their phone or tablet.  They look up the scripture for the day at that is the total of the reading for that day or maybe for the week.

I was reading the advent story this afternoon in a real in the hand bible with split leather cover and I discovered the greatest communication tool ever conceived.  Three words struck me: God with us.

God the eternal, everlasting, all powerful, all knowing, unchanging has a desire to communicate to me.  And His preferred method is not a screen, a video, or even a book.  GOD wants to communicate on a one to one basis.  Face to face.  Life to life.  God WITH, God in the same place as, God the companion, God the helper, God the united in hope and love, God the company we desire.  God with us. Not as an overbearing and authoritative being waiting to stab his creation with a lightning bolt upon any deviation of conduct.  He is so close, so united with us that any punishment would also hurt HIM.

Our sins, our transgressions, our willful steps of defiance always hurt HIM.  That is true empathy.  He feels our pain, our lives of quiet desperation.

We celebrate Advent, that gentile waiting, let us wait with our hearts and ears open and we will hear the heart of God because he is already here.  GOD WITH US, the greatest communication of all time.

What do you think?

Church, Ministry

Over the top leadership.

Biblically speaking, there has always been wolves within the sheepfold. In the first century church, they went by many names: false teachers, greedy for selfish gain, deceitful workmen, and ravenous wolves. Some were called Gnostics, others today we call antinomianism (look it up).  But whatever the name they specialized in hijacking congregations then abusing power.

It is the abuse of the position of headship that led to ruin. Throughout history, there have been thousands of examples of this type of undue ungodly leadership. Such pastors may use pressure tactics, political maneuvering, and/or persuasive speech to manipulate a congregation into acting on their behalf. When they don’t get their way, these controlling pastors usually either mercifully move on to another church, cause a stir in their current church, and/or blame the congregation for not following their lead. Simply put, hijacking pastors are building their own kingdom rather than Christ’s kingdom.

In my studies there are some general character traits:

  1. They never express grace to anyone not living up to their standards.
  2. Are always right and never wrong.
  3. Cannot accept criticism without becoming defensive.
  4. Are not willing to share the pulpit.
  5. Do not support other ministries.
  6. Resist accountability.
  7. Feels threatened by former pastors.
  8. Surround themselves with “yes men” rather than edifying leaders.
  9. Do not entrust ministry to other leaders.
  10. Undermine programs that they cannot control.
  11. Insist that everything in the church-run through them.

Do you have anything to add to my list?  Leave a comment.

Church, Ministry

“Control is an Illusion”

I have been in a position of leadership in several churches over the years.  I have, in retrospect, have come close to a leadership style which may well be called micromanagement or for simplicity sake MMP.  As a MMP (MicroManagement Pastor)  I could not leave things to others.  I had to put my two cents into everything.  And it was exhausting. In one church it led to my resignation because I just could not do it anymore.  The church was in a building program and I had to be there pounding nails with everyone else.  I had the ill and infirmed to visit.  I had three messages a week to prepare.  I had to put the board agenda, compose a newsletter, mock up the bulletin and go fetch the flowers for service.  Songs had to be picked out.  And on and on and on.  I wanted to control the minutia and the total.

I have yet to find anyone who likes a MMP; not even the MMP himself.  There are those who need close oversight and crave for direction but ultimately hate it.  The reason why it is so hated is that is just annoying. It’s overbearing. A MMP among Christian leaders reflects poorly on our faith and the gospel. It doesn’t work, and that’s mainly because it’s not the way God designed things to work.

To try and lead this way is a failure to lead.  It is just the far wrong end of the stick.  True leaders, whether in business, church or any other environment, should be empowering.  True leaders should set others up to succeed.  It is providing the tools for excellence.  When leadership in a church bears all the burden of success or failure, that leaders undermine all those that are being led.  It takes away their opportunities to shine and never shows them a way forward. Instead of raising up new talent and new leaders it suppresses both and limits everyone’s effectiveness.

President Truman had a plaque on his desk; “THE BUCK STOPS HERE.” There has to be a place where the life of the church guided.   Micromanagers don’t realize they are making life harder for others. These MMPs cannot or will not see the damage they are causing. They don’t see the damage they are causing to themselves. By taking on all the burden of work instead of empowering others to do it well, a MMP is stockpiling stress and burden. If the inclination is to do all the work instead of helping others do it then maybe being in a position of leadership is the wrong fit.

I believe God has uniquely gifted every person. Leaders are tasked with seeing those gifts, feeding them, and giving people room to use them.  It is not seeing what needs to be done and trying to fit someone into it. It is not creating a graph of the jobs of the church and squeezing someone into each vacant spot.  I would rather have Godly filled and talented people do what they are meant to do than one hundred people doing something because of my perception of a need. It is God’s job provide gifts and the Christian’s job to use those gifts for the furtherance of the church.  MMPs either cannot or will not do this. They see people as tools to be moved as chess pieces or foolish sheep to be shepherded. They cannot recognize that the people under them may be better at certain tasks and responsibilities and that this is a good thing! Those serving under a micromanager cannot reach the potential God has imbued them with until they are free to use their gifts. Micromanagers stand in their way.

It boils down to a trust issue.  If the leader can’t trust people to do what they have been empowered for and gifted to do, it is not just a point of view toward people.  It is a lack of trust in God. The MMP reflects a lack of grace.  It is a headstrong disconnected view of God’s grace and mercy.  Grace and mercy in the church is allowing someone to do the best possible.  It is not an expectation of perfection.  Grace is giving responsibility and space to those who are flawed and might well fail.  When a leader can’t give any leeway to try new things or take some risks it is a lack of grace. However, when leaders show that aspect of grace, people under them feel both safe and free to pursue great things. Grace allows bigger things to be accomplished where the MMP crushes them.

What do you think?  Leave a comment.

Church, Ministry

Church Leadership Limits

There is a broad spectrum of churches.  Some are defined by their theology, some by the worship style, some are characterized by their denominational ties, and some are simply the delegated church of a community.  At issue today is those churches that have become a mirror of a personality.  Yes, the church should be patterned after the personality and person of Christ, but not after a personality of a worship leader, pastor, or preacher.  When a single person becomes the only one making decisions when everything from the who will teach a Sunday School class to what will be sung in the worship service it is a harbinger of what could well become a cult.

To what extent should the leadership of a church control or limit the freedom of its members?

Guidelines here:

  1. The absolute authority within the church and the individual Christian is God. All other authority is subordinate.
  2. All Christians live in a society and have responsibilities to others.  Never-the-less, it is to God alone that we are primarily accountable and responsible.  It is not our families or friends or church or community or society that will be our ultimate judge.
  3. There is a tension between the encouragement to follow spiritual leaders and the individual liberty that Christians must retain in Christ.  A Christian should not allow liberty to become license or irresponsibility, but do all out of love for others.
  4. A leader must first be a servant. The leader should be the first to get his hands dirty. The leader must be the first when someone is in need.  The leader must be standing at the ready to do whatever is asked.
  5. The New Testament says little about church leaders insisting and demanding obedience from their fellow-believers.
  6. There are definite limits to the authority of church leaders.  For example, a leader does not have the right to tell people how to live their personal lives.  Christians should not accept domination, exploitation, manipulation or any kind of spiritual abuse.  In morally indifferent matters, where there is no clear statement in Scripture, everyone must be free to live according to his own conscience.  However, individual freedom should be regulated by love.
  7. The Church exists in union with God through Jesus Christ.  It consists of believers-in- community as Christ’s living body whose primary loyalty is to God through Jesus Christ, not to the leaders themselves.  It is a living organism rather than an organization.
  8. The ideal is ministry by community to achieve corporate maturity.  Ministry belongs to the whole church.  Although there was an organized leadership of elders (bishops) and deacons in the NT churches, there does not seem to be any gap between the “clergy” and the “laity”.  Rather all those with spiritual gifts, including the gift of leadership, are called to equip all believers for mature discipleship and service.
  9. The five key ministries of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher, collectively provide a healthy spiritual diet for any church, if they are held in balance (Ephesians 4:11).

 

What do you think?  Leave a comment.

Church

Why Church?  Post three.

Why Church?  Post three.

I just received new input to my question as to the why or why not of church attendance.  I am still trying to digest it but it does point to the second-most reason for attending church or, conversely why they don’t. Being accepted as an individual.

I confess that all this stuff is based upon a very imprecise methodology, but never-the-less this strong current seems to push its way through the seemingly calm waters of church attendance.  There is an unspoken expectation of conformity within the church. There are unspoken guidelines that are placed upon everyone that attends.  If the leader of worship asks everyone to stand, it is expected that all will stand, even if it causes pain.  If there is a special offering for whatever is the cause of the day, there is an expectation that all will give.  If the unstated theology of the church states you will vote and vote a specific way, there is an expectation that you will.  Every church seems to have a set of rules that must be conformed to.  I have seen theological statements made on literally hundreds of church websites that spell out to the last detail of who is God and what He expects.  There is little space for individuality. It is conformity or nothing.  There is no room for being unique.  As one respondent wrote, “People are messy.” The attainment of perfection as defined by the church crowd is not attainable.  It is a moving target.  One person expects one behavior and another expects something different.  And when one person steps out of line, pressure is applied to bring them back into conformity.

The very expectation of conformity squeezes out the individual.  This expectation of conformity also unleashes comparison, judgment, and hypocrisy.  It leaves little room for me to live, breath, or to be my own person.  When I try to be the unique me, my acceptance in the church is in jeopardy.  Sure, the church is full of unique people, but there is a constant pressure to conform to the perfect image of what a Christian should be.  Or at least what the current envisionment of what a Christian should be.

In my research, this is often characterized as “the church is a bunch of hypocrites.”  Hypocrites because of this internal expectation of conformity is not even held to by those who expect it in everyone else.

People who are accepted in their individuality like church.  They are valued for their uniqueness. People what to be what God has made them, not what the expectations of others would have them be.  There is no predetermined mold for what we should be.  A church that accepts the way we are and all our idiosyncrasies, warts and all, is the church where you are welcome and is a joy to attend.

Church

Why do people go to church? Part 1

I recently used Facebook to enlist some help in understanding why my family and friends attend church. Some took the opportunity to unleash a long missive about what God is, while others presented me with one-line answers. Out of this input and independent research, I have found some specific lines of thought. Of the ten or so reasons this is the first:

People attend church to find community. In church speak it is called fellowship or small group interactions. Life in our current society has become full of plastic relationships. A hand shake here or there is not enough. Getting 30 likes on Facebook is not enough. A serial email, composed by a professional and splattered with canned clip art is not enough. People are looking for deep, communal, loyal and authentic relationships. Christianity was never meant to be lived in a cloistered, isolated, solitary lifestyle. When church members, God-fearing members, supportive of all the ministries of the church members can’t find community they lose interest in all else. People have an inherent need for meaningful relationships. When a church learns to nurture community, it becomes a place of joy. If the church neglects this vital part of love and acceptance, church will become just one more thing on the list that just sucks the life out of you.

I have experienced both types of churches: one that focuses on fellowship and ones that seem to legislate or even encourage the one stop shop of worship without caring. Too many good and faithful Christians are tired of the investment of emotional energy into churches that don’t build a culture that values authentic community.

More to come. What do you think?

Church, Ramblings

Why Church?

I am at a place in my life where I wonder about the things in my life in which I have invested so much.  It is sort of a high-level second-guessing of all the decisions made in my life.  You know what I am saying here because you have been there yourself.  You feel regret that you could have spent more time with the more important things and less time watching others do the things you should have done.

This second-guessing reaches into every part of my history.  Everything from wearing a hat in the sun to prevent skin cancers, to my propensity to eat too much, to the time spent taking naps, and even to the time and effort to go to church.

It is this last question that has me in a quandary today.  Once I started to wonder about the efficacy of church, I went down a rat hole questioning about my current church role.  I must ask myself (not always a very intelligent conversation), “Is the institution which I have a membership and attend regularly, the place for me.”  In my current point in my life, is it worth the time, talent and treasure, I am pouring into an address?

I am fully aware this self-introspection sounds a little weird coming from someone that has already invested so much.  I have been the one crying, cajoling, begging, pleading, bribing and dragging others to the church most of my adult life. I have been the one who stood between heaven and hell for a number of people.  I have told countless souls of the necessity of being part of the Body of Christ.  I have quoted scripture after scripture, hoping to sway someone to come to church.

Never-the-less, here I am wondering if it was all worth it.  It was once said, “there is no perfect church as long as I am in it.”  I think it was Mark Twain that said, “I would not want to join any group that would want me.”  It really gets down to why do thoughtful, believing, serious people attend my local church in the first place.

I need some help.  I very seldom ask for assistance, I see myself as being very capable and able to handle most things.  Here is the task:  If you go to church, tell me why, if you don’t go to church, tell me why.  I am writing something for publication and outside of the normal everyday reasons and sometimes trite quotes, I want real feelings and real reasons why.  Please pass this on to all that would be willing to add their two cents.  Thank you.

Ministry, Psycolog

Giving it all away

1 Comment

Let’s play a game.  The game is easy at first and it will help us with a definition.

  1. I have 100 one-dollar bills.
  2. There are five players of which I am one.
  3. Like monopoly, I pass out the money equally.
  4. How much money does each player receive?

It doesn’t take a math wizard to figure out the answer the question.  Each player now has 20 dollars. But now is where it gets a little harder.

  1. Each person in the game must give half of their money to the most deserving by whatever criteria you would like. Equality is no longer a criterion. There could be some possible outcomes:
    1. A person could think he is the most deserving and keep his 10 dollars.
    2. A person could think that friendship or popularity should make the decision.
    3. A person could see the other’s way of dispersion and try to make it fair and give to the person who did not receive anything. Trying to be fair to everyone.
    4. One player may give his 10 dollars back to me because I am the one who started giving away my money in the first place. A reward for giving.

In the first part of the game, I am expected to not cheat and give the dollars out evenly to each person.  It is expected that I am fair with my game.  It was an example of equality.  Each of the players expected the same amount of money at the beginning of the game. The requirement of equality is that everyone was treated the same.  The issue comes up when equality is no longer an absolute criterion for the next step. The second step included things like selfishness as in response (a), prejudice as in response (b), or as in response (c) where equality is attempted.

There is a food pantry at the church at which I attend.  The Pantry provides food to those who want to avail themselves of the pantry services.  The Pantry provides to everyone who comes; equality.  One of the services provided is USDA offerings.  To be a recipient of this food you must meet criteria set by the USDA.  The USDA sets a maximum income ceiling to receive this food.  They provide for low-income families only.  There is no equality in this requirement, it is a means to provide food to the most deserving.  The USDA is trying to provide a level playing field for the food insecure in our community.  This provision is not equal.  This provision is a service of equity.  The USDA is saying that families that do not have the ability or incentive or just plain bad luck there is a government program that will help them in their time of need.  This is an example of equity; that all should have a bottom line for food.

My moral center based upon God says to me I should care for the needed.  Jesus tells me in the word that I should give to the hungry.  I fully support the Pantry and what it is accomplishing. But sometimes I wonder about the difference between equality and equity.

I just read a study on the difference between equality and equity.  This study tells me that people frequently disagree about morality. There seems to be no standard morality in our society. The arguments are about which rules are valid and which are not.  There are disagreements about whether contraception is morally wrong.  There are disagreements over abortion.  There are even disagreements over the fairness of our taxation system.  Should I download music from the internet without paying for it?  So which side do I find my moral compass?  Should my decisions be made only on equality, “all the same no matter what”, or equity, “the one who needs the most”?

I would suppose that if I am the one running the game, I start out with equality, “all men are created equal” and make my decision about equity as I go along.

I need your input on this one, please leave a comment.

Ministry, Psycolog, Ramblings

I feel your pain.

I have come to know a person who told me he had little empathy.  It both shocked me and created a sense of doubt in his motives and his actions.  So, I did a little research on what empathy really means and what should be my reaction.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines empathy as:

1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also :the capacity for this

Therefore, a person has empathy if that person can understand and share the feelings of another.  Empathy is the ability to experience the feelings of another person.  It goes beyond acknowledgement of pain and suffering of others to a personal co-ownership of that pain and suffering.

So from there I had to understand the difference between sympathy and empathy.  I have used them interchangeably.

Here is a chart:

Empathy Sympathy
Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes. Acknowledging another person’s emotional hardships and providing comfort and assurance.
Personal understanding from experience of like circumstance or proportion of pain Understanding the quantity and type of pain experience of others
The ability to sense the feeling of the other person by remembering or imagining themselves in the other’s situations. The ability to measure and understand
I know it’s not easy to lose weight because I have faced the same problems myself Trying to lose weight can often feel like an uphill battle
A doctor relating with a patient because he or she has been in a similar situation or experience Doctors comforting patients or their families
Experience of emotion like the emotion of another person.
Empathy shares Sympathy expresses
I feel your pain I am sorry for your pain
Empathy is a mindset based upon personality Sympathy is a mindset based upon learning
Empathy is a talent Sympathy is a learned behavior
Empathy is exhibited in sharing Sympathy is increased by repetition

Of the two, empathy is a deeper feeling, but sympathy can be just as honest and heartfelt. However, empathy can forge a deeper and more meaningful connection, thus serving as a bridge for greater communication between individuals or between a leader and his or her followers.  Empathy most often leads to sympathy.  But sympathy alone does not lead to empathy.  This study leads me to something else; the actions that come from both empathy and sympathy: compassion.

Compassion is the action that is motivated by either empathy or sympathy. Compassion recognizes the situation and does something with it. Both sympathy and empathy imply caring for another person, but with empathy, the caring is enhanced or expanded by being able to feel the other person’s emotions.

In my study, I found a remarkable statement: The capacity to sympathize and empathize are considered vital for a sense of humanity — i.e., the ability to understand one’s fellow humans and their problems. People who lack this capacity are often classified as narcissistic, sociopathic, or in extreme cases, psychopathic.  I don’t think the person spoken of earlier needs to find a psychiatrist. But I do believe that both empathy and sympathy are vitally important to our humanity. He should try and do all he can to develop a sense of sympathy through practice. A sense of sympathy that can be exhibited in compassion with a willingness to stop and listen carefully to other situations and pain.  Sympathy is a learned behavior and empathy is personal talent. You can’t learn empathy.  You can learn to be sympathetic.

What do you think, leave a comment?

The Study of God and Life