I spent a good bit of time in my childhood/teens in SBC churches. I even remember a seminary board member who was part of one of these churches telling me they were always there to make sure I had every opportunity to live up to my potential (at least until I got divorced). I have a fairly good working knowledge of the conservative christian world because of this I think. Today's event in Texas and the politicizing of faith is not what I remember anyone in that world really standing for. The political ideologies played some part in things sure, but what we taught and were taught was all about helping others regardless of the cost. Now I admit that it often glossed over some of the national social issues, but I remember many nights carrying blankets for the homeless, driving them to shelters, and giving money towards medical missions at home and abroad. These were the things people talked about and did. Yes, there was an annoying amount of morality based theology, but the "literal" reading of scripture didn't read like "America the Chosen nation." It often read very differently than that.
I don't know exactly how this side of Christianity got co-oped by those wanting to create fear and promote nationalism, but it certainly seems to have happened. Maybe it's because instead of being a community where various ideologies had a voice, all the dissenting views left or were pushed out (and some of both happened). Without dissenting voices it is much easier to broker fear, without those who push our buttons and make our blood boil that we truly love, it is easier to call them enemies, to push them into a group known as "other." I say this with a sense of fear of what could still happen in the PC(USA), where the sides divide, glad to let go of struggles and settle into a comfortable place. I don't think that's what we're called to. I think we're called to struggle. To struggle along with those we disagree with vehemently, to struggle about the meaning of scripture, to struggle with questions of power, privilege, equality, and love. We need to see that none of us have the only way, and that we must go together if we are to do anything good in this world.
Today there are people praying for the economy, for our nation, for moral values, and for other things that I personally find to be misguided prayers. I would rather us pray for equality of humanity, care for creation, love for all, and continued struggling together, but those praying for these other things can only journey with us if we're willing to treat them as equals and not as others. I do not agree with the co-opting of God for national, personal, or ideological gain, but I do nothing better if I'm not willing to engage in the conversations and act in love.
That being said, I must say why I am pained by the subjects of these prayers:
1. The Economy - Those who have lost before know that these prayers are ones of protect what I have. Yet, God is clear that nothing is our own. Should we lose everything, we gain a freedom that we do not have when we possess things of our own. We should not pray that God fixes the economy, but that we will learn what many who have been or are homeless know: There is a real difference between want and need.
My prayer: http://youtu.be/a-O88_hZD5o
2. Our Nation - I do not hate the US, but I do not think we deserve any special blessings, or even deserve all we have. We are truly a nation of privileged and power, and any prayers for our nation should begin with a greater realization of what protecting our own does to damage the rest of the world. God is not interested in making our nation great, rather God is interested in the greatness of all of creation and that begins with us all realizing our shared humanity, our shared divine spark, and our shared call to be stewards of all of Creation.
3. Morality - I don't think we should go about killing each other or just doing whatever whenever, but really it is not what people do in scripture that makes them faithful or not, why do we think that's the key for us? The key for those called faithful within our Christian (and by extension Jewish) tradition is a willingness to listen and discern that which God wants from them. Jonah is reluctant, Moses is both reluctant and immoral, Peter falls far from belief or morality (cutting off ears, easily forgiven?) . . . these are heroes, and they should be because they never stop struggling and discerning. They are faithful, not moral. The why is of greater importance than the what. This also means that we are not to decide for others what is most faithful in any specific instance, but again walk along side them in their journey, for we do not know which paths are narrow or wide while we are on them.
There is much more I could say, but really you've probably read all you want to by now. Again, I wonder how many others really think that God is America's God? How many feel that God is more interested in us than any other nation? How many think that God feels that the things we call important to God are really the things that are important? How many want a God that is a God that is going to say "You didn't feed me when you saw me on the street corner that one time, you're a goat, go to hell."? How many think that God just wants you to believe, be fairly moral to those you care about, and ask for lots of forgiveness, all while trying to protect that which you think of as yours?
Or do we really realize that God created us for something more, for greater works of faithfulness, for an actual relationship with God, each other, and all of creation that calls us to give all of ourselves up and being uncomfortable and struggling, but to do so together in love with one another for there we will find peace?
Showing posts with label Ideology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ideology. Show all posts
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
Can one depart a relationship graciously?
I heard the term again today . . . Gracious Departure. I can't tell you how uncomfortable that term makes me. It's like a CIA coverup, let's work out a deal and then it'll be done and all go our separate ways. Before you know it, it'll be like nothing ever happened.
For people that's BULL. For churches that's BULL. It is the nature of relationships that some end. Many when they end, need to end, and when both parties recognize that it does become easier to move on. Those in that situation though are few and far between, and even then division of shared identity is problematic. This best case scenario then recognizes the irreversible change that we create on one another and the links created. This does happen, but it's never quick and painless.
A truly gracious ending to a relationship though is more complicated and happens only 1 of 2 ways in my opinion:
1. A recognition that a relationship needs to end from 2 parties, with a full recognition of mutual connections and commitments, and an understanding of the continuation of these apart, leaving open the potential for forming a new relationship in the future.
2. A realization that a relationship is not, nor was it ever as both parties may have interpreted it, with an agreement to continue to work and define said relationship for what it is, not what either side thought it was.
Of course to read between the lines there, many would argue that neither is an actual departure from said relationship. I would argue from a Human Communication viewpoint they are actual departures, just outside of what we view as the norm.
Yet, at this moment it seems though that this split that is happening within the PC(USA) is not amicable, much less gracious. Both sides have put a claim on parts of the shared identity as solely belonging to them. This means that we're not looking at a Gracious Departure, but a Violent Disassociation. I've been here done this in the Baptist world, some churches there had packed their bags more than a decade earlier and were already out the door, just playing house with the denomination. Their exit was expected, but they still thought that it would "prove a point." It didn't. Other churches still cling to some form of dual identity, but really have hacked off a leg or 2 in the process in order to feel comfortable with their decision. The problem for these churches is they realized the bond that was already formed and didn't want to lose it, there was value in the relationship they had fought for, and they still wanted to be heard. . .on some things. On the other issues, they'd take their ball and play elsewhere until their partner (SBC) made them take the rest of their stuff from the house as well.
I see both of these things happening in PC(USA). The "Fellowship" group is seemingly trying to do the latter, while a number of churches are willing to just take the bags they packed and leave. There though are many churches who haven't committed to either of these approaches, but feel the tugs of one or both. It is for these that I fear the consequences of what we choose to do with the others in regards to a "Gracious Departure."
I will use a circumstance I know for an example. I know 3 churches in an area who are all currently restless due to the passage of 10A. They all have sessions that are "examining the options" or have examined them. Given the right set of circumstances they may all take a chance at a "Gracious Departure." The pastors and sessions have tired of fighting with the denomination. So let's assume they agree to make a "Gracious Departure" would it really look like Grace?
Church 1 - Leads the Hispanic ministry in the area, without them this growing ministry collapses within the PC(USA) for the area.
Church 2 - Is more theologically diverse than their Session believes. Their pastor is honestly struggling to work through issues he's having, but is committed to the denomination, if they leave his turmoil becomes worse. The other staff member would quit immediately. The church would lose people and probably go under in the resulting turmoil.
Church 3 - Again, an active church in community outreach, heads up many presbytery wide initiatives (school and clothing drives, education events, etc).
Regardless of how both the church and denomination handled the departure of any of these churches it would be less than gracious because the connections are too deep. Termination of these relationships couldn't be done cleanly and quietly. No relationship termination is without explosive collateral damage when disassociation is involved.
I admit that I do not desire for there to be a mass exodus of conservative congregations, I feel denominations are stronger and better able to grow faithfully when there is pushing and struggling together rather than moving to places of ideological agreement. This also goes for efforts to name churches according to ideological stances on any certain issue (fellowship, more light, etc.) but as long as we don't use these tags to disassociate with one another, it would be a smaller price to pay in my opinion. I do not believe that in all cases the fight should be to keep those who have been out the door for years, they're going to go anyway, but let's not encourage others to go that way because we're acting as we feel we've been acted towards. I don't think this denomination would be stronger if the chopped off all that feel uncomfortable, don't fit. To say that it would is as fundamentalist as one may claim those who now feel like leaving are. This has been and will continue to be a complex journey of faith we take together. This is not the end nor is it a beginning, it is just another moment in the journey and the journey together is what I think it is really all about.
So maybe there is a way still to redefine these existing relationships, maybe though there does need to be some sort of "break." I don't know the answers, but I feel we're not doing enough to truly be a people where ALL are welcome when we're too willing to let the uncomfortable, the misfits walk (regardless of who these misfits are). This is a hard issue for our church, just as it is when friends, lovers, or any other relationship becomes strained and difficult for a long time. Let us journey together in God's grace.
For people that's BULL. For churches that's BULL. It is the nature of relationships that some end. Many when they end, need to end, and when both parties recognize that it does become easier to move on. Those in that situation though are few and far between, and even then division of shared identity is problematic. This best case scenario then recognizes the irreversible change that we create on one another and the links created. This does happen, but it's never quick and painless.
A truly gracious ending to a relationship though is more complicated and happens only 1 of 2 ways in my opinion:
1. A recognition that a relationship needs to end from 2 parties, with a full recognition of mutual connections and commitments, and an understanding of the continuation of these apart, leaving open the potential for forming a new relationship in the future.
2. A realization that a relationship is not, nor was it ever as both parties may have interpreted it, with an agreement to continue to work and define said relationship for what it is, not what either side thought it was.
Of course to read between the lines there, many would argue that neither is an actual departure from said relationship. I would argue from a Human Communication viewpoint they are actual departures, just outside of what we view as the norm.
Yet, at this moment it seems though that this split that is happening within the PC(USA) is not amicable, much less gracious. Both sides have put a claim on parts of the shared identity as solely belonging to them. This means that we're not looking at a Gracious Departure, but a Violent Disassociation. I've been here done this in the Baptist world, some churches there had packed their bags more than a decade earlier and were already out the door, just playing house with the denomination. Their exit was expected, but they still thought that it would "prove a point." It didn't. Other churches still cling to some form of dual identity, but really have hacked off a leg or 2 in the process in order to feel comfortable with their decision. The problem for these churches is they realized the bond that was already formed and didn't want to lose it, there was value in the relationship they had fought for, and they still wanted to be heard. . .on some things. On the other issues, they'd take their ball and play elsewhere until their partner (SBC) made them take the rest of their stuff from the house as well.
I see both of these things happening in PC(USA). The "Fellowship" group is seemingly trying to do the latter, while a number of churches are willing to just take the bags they packed and leave. There though are many churches who haven't committed to either of these approaches, but feel the tugs of one or both. It is for these that I fear the consequences of what we choose to do with the others in regards to a "Gracious Departure."
I will use a circumstance I know for an example. I know 3 churches in an area who are all currently restless due to the passage of 10A. They all have sessions that are "examining the options" or have examined them. Given the right set of circumstances they may all take a chance at a "Gracious Departure." The pastors and sessions have tired of fighting with the denomination. So let's assume they agree to make a "Gracious Departure" would it really look like Grace?
Church 1 - Leads the Hispanic ministry in the area, without them this growing ministry collapses within the PC(USA) for the area.
Church 2 - Is more theologically diverse than their Session believes. Their pastor is honestly struggling to work through issues he's having, but is committed to the denomination, if they leave his turmoil becomes worse. The other staff member would quit immediately. The church would lose people and probably go under in the resulting turmoil.
Church 3 - Again, an active church in community outreach, heads up many presbytery wide initiatives (school and clothing drives, education events, etc).
Regardless of how both the church and denomination handled the departure of any of these churches it would be less than gracious because the connections are too deep. Termination of these relationships couldn't be done cleanly and quietly. No relationship termination is without explosive collateral damage when disassociation is involved.
I admit that I do not desire for there to be a mass exodus of conservative congregations, I feel denominations are stronger and better able to grow faithfully when there is pushing and struggling together rather than moving to places of ideological agreement. This also goes for efforts to name churches according to ideological stances on any certain issue (fellowship, more light, etc.) but as long as we don't use these tags to disassociate with one another, it would be a smaller price to pay in my opinion. I do not believe that in all cases the fight should be to keep those who have been out the door for years, they're going to go anyway, but let's not encourage others to go that way because we're acting as we feel we've been acted towards. I don't think this denomination would be stronger if the chopped off all that feel uncomfortable, don't fit. To say that it would is as fundamentalist as one may claim those who now feel like leaving are. This has been and will continue to be a complex journey of faith we take together. This is not the end nor is it a beginning, it is just another moment in the journey and the journey together is what I think it is really all about.
So maybe there is a way still to redefine these existing relationships, maybe though there does need to be some sort of "break." I don't know the answers, but I feel we're not doing enough to truly be a people where ALL are welcome when we're too willing to let the uncomfortable, the misfits walk (regardless of who these misfits are). This is a hard issue for our church, just as it is when friends, lovers, or any other relationship becomes strained and difficult for a long time. Let us journey together in God's grace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)