"When it comes to controlling human beings, there is no better instrument than lies. Because you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts." Michael Ende link
Deb here… In the wake of our shocking post about Pete Wilson and Cross Point Church, I have been pondering what to share that might be helpful to those impacted by such a terrible church scandal. Dee and I have been blogging for over 7-1/2 years, and we have gotten to the point that almost nothing surprises us anymore. We have heard so many heart-wrenching testimonies over the years (some which have been shared in this forum), and we wish we could take away the pain that our brothers and sisters in Christ have experienced.
Where does one turn when (s)he has had a painful church experience? The good news is there are tremendous resources available, such as:
The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen
Churches That Abuse Ronald Enroth
Enroth has made his book available for free online and can be accessed here.
We are very familiar with both of these books and highly recommend them! What we have learned the hard way is that we cannot blindly follow church leaders, and that is one of the reasons this blog exists.
For those who are new to TWW, I am re-publishing one of Dee's thought-provoking posts.
Please know that I'm keeping those connected with Cross Point Church in my prayers. May God's will be done in the midst of an extremely painful situation.
Thugs in the Pulpit: Avoiding Abuse from Church Leaders (link)
Over the weekend, I decided to Google church and pastoral abuse. Normally, we already have a situation in mind when we start a post. This time, I wanted to see if there were any posts that I might have overlooked. One caught my eye! In 2004, Ministry Today published Thugs In The Pulpit. Once again, look at the date-2004. This was 5 years prior to our start in blogging. The Calvinista dude-bros were just arriving on the scene. Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, Mark Dever, Acts 29, Sovereign Grace Ministries, 9 Marks, Together for the Gospel were not well known and some had yet to get started.
Quacks in the pulpit
Obviously, a number of pastoral abuse situations were already known to the publication since it started off with these statements
Why are so many pastors abusing the trust of those God has placed in their care?
Few leaders in our society have more power over others than ministers–power to abuse or power to set free. However, people are more likely to have a healthy wariness of "quacks" in law, medicine and counseling than they do of "quacks" in religion.
Although most pastors are both gifted and godly, many Christians are naive enough to assume that any man or woman who is able to build a congregation is healthy. It is such naiveté that makes people vulnerable to unscrupulous pastors.
Two things contribute to allowing abusive personalities in ministry.
1. Religious credentialing has overlooked abusive personalities seeking to enter the pastorate.
Unfortunately, few religious credentialing bodies take any precautionary measures to protect the public from abusive personalities attempting to enter the ministry.
2. Lay people tend to trust their pastors and do not view them in the same manner that they view civic leaders.
Think about it. We demand accountability from our politicians. We carefully look at their finances, demeanor, history, etc. Magazines are replete with stories of "I was an administrative assistant for Mayor Smith and he treated his employees horribly."
However, when it involves a pastor, we suddenly apply the *no gossip* rule. We are told to follow the vision casting of the leader since he is a "man of God."
For example, It is not uncommon for members of a congregation not to know the salaries of their pastors. Today, I was reading a church website in which the pastor was calling for *excellent* compensation for the staff that reflects the average salary in the area and is enough to allow their wives to stay home. This area has average home prices in excess of $400,000. I checked to see if the salaries of the pastors were available to the lay person. They are not. However, I know that the young lead pastor lives quite well.
They do not look at their pastors with the same discretion or suspicion that protects them from other harmful people in their communities. This enhances the pastor's power and gives them greater opportunity than any other civic leader to hurt or help people.
Abusive pastors force *unity* by handpicking supporters.
I had a former pastor who told me that his elders had only disagreed with him twice in the span of 28 years! At that moment, I knew there was a serious problem in the church. There is a term that gets bandied about that causes me grave concern when it come to pastoral misconduct. That word is *unity.*
Just about every church covenant that I read (I believe covenants are often misused by abusive pastors) utilize the term unity. The word *unity* seems to mean that we must never disagree with the leaders in charge. This is quite dangerous to the church. Ephesians 4: 11-16 (NIV, Bible Gateway) points out the results of unity.
11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.
14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16 From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.
It is evident that unity occurs when we, meaning all of us in the church, become knowledgeable in the faith. This knowledge leads to maturity. Unity does not mean saying YES to every whim of a leader. We should carefully assess, in the light of Scripture, what is being proposed. Maturity may actually involve disagreeing with leadership. It might even involve reporting an abuse situation to the authorities.
There were a number of Mars Hill members who disagreed with Mark Driscoll and were on the receiving end of his wrath. However, unlike a number of the members of The Gospel Coalition and Acts 29 fan-boys, those members proved to be correct. They demonstrated true Christian unity by being concerned for the welfare of Mars Hill. The fan-boys, on the other hand, wrote reams about the wonders of Mark Driscoll. Who was truly mature in this situation? It should give lots of people pause as they look at the leadership of these organizations.
It is important to understand that abusive pastors will be sure to surround themselves with yes boys. This means that lay church members must be prepared that they will not garner support from the elders if they must confront a hard reality. That was the case in my former church as we dealt with a poorly handled abuse situations. The article put it this way.
Abusive pastors also carefully select the leaders for their congregations. They choose men and women who are willing to give total and unquestioned allegiance to the pastor in return for positions of prominence and power in the church. These leaders become the abusive pastor's agents for controlling and manipulating the congregation.
Think about this. When The Village Church went after Karen Hinkley, not one elder or pastor (There are quite a few of them) spoke out against the unjust, abusive actions in the matter. Matt Chandler had effectively surrounded himself with a bunch of yes men and not one of them had the maturity or the concern for the unity of TVC to say "This ain't right." I wonder if he has since remedied this lack of mature elder and pastoral leadership?
Abusive churches control people by making them feel worthless.
There are a number of churches these days which love to proclaim the *wrath of God.* That wrath is directed at all humans since we are *unworthy* of salvation due to our wretched state. Recently, I read a comment by a woman who claimed that she is nothing but a *worm." I was irritated that the editor did not attempt to affirm this woman. Then, I realized that the editor may also feel that way about herself. A person who feels worthless is easily controlled.
Our self-worth was established at Calvary (see 1 Pet. 1:18-19; 1 Cor. 6:19-20). We are not worthy of the price Christ paid for our redemption, but the fact that He paid it assures us that we are not worthless.
People who have been abused by churches often feel separated from the love of God.
This makes me sad. It was the fact that the God of the universe loved me, a nobody teen, that led me into the arms of Jesus. It is concerning to me that today's authoritarian churches tend to stress God's anger while downplaying God's love. They claim that speaking *too much* about God's love will cause a Christian not to be obedient. However, it is my contention that stressing God's wrath doesn't make anyone more obedient since many of those folks, fearful of God's wrath, sin just as much as the next guy. Never, ever forget how much God loves you. Run from any church in which a pastor downplays this reality.
Traits that lead to spiritual abuse.
I think this list of traits is worthwhile for all of us to consider, especially if we are in a position to influence others. Also, this list may help you to assess a current or past leader who is/was abusive. These are definite warning signs that things are amiss with your leaders. I saw 10 of these traits in a former pastor. I have also seen most of these in the stories told of Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, etc.
I saw or see none of these weaknesses in Pete Briscoe and Joanne Hummel of Bent Tree Bible Fellowship or Wade Burleson. May you find a church run by people like these.
- I have a grandiose sense of self-importance, and tend to exaggerate my talents and achievements.
- I am preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success.
- I see myself as someone "special" who can only be understood by other "special" or high-status people.
- I require excessive admiration and feel entitled to special treatment.
- Others are expected to automatically comply with my expectations.
- I take advantage of others to achieve my own goals.
- I lack compassion, and am unwilling to identify with the feelings and needs of others.
- I am arrogant and haughty.
- I am preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends and associates.
- I fear confiding in people since they may maliciously use any information I give them to do me harm.
- I read demeaning or threatening meanings into innocent remarks.
- I bear grudges and am unforgiving of others I feel have harmed me.
- I am quick to perceive attacks on my character or reputation that are not apparent to others and react angrily or counterattack.
- I am deceitful and seduce others for my own profit or pleasure.
- I am impulsive in my actions and fail to plan ahead.
- I may be excessively devoted to work to the exclusion of leisure activities and friendships.
- I am inflexible, stubborn and controlling, insisting that others submit exactly to my way of doing things.
- I unreasonably criticize and scorn other ministers and people in positions of authority in the church.
- I am uncomfortable in situations where I am not the center of attention.
- I believe I am doing a much better job than others think I am doing.
I look forward to hearing from you about abusive church leaders and the traits you noticed. I commend the authors of Ministry Today. They were ahead of the game. I wish I had read this when it was published. It might have saved me from some heartache. Also, there are a whole bunch of people that should have learned their lessons from this post. But, The Gospel Coalition, T4G, Acts 29, 9 Marks and others didn't. Abuse continues to be rampant in many churches 12 years later. In fact, perhaps it is even worse. Time will tell.
First!
Just this afternoon, I was discussing with a church-planting friend about a ministry abuse situation that was going on in the early 2000 decade. She was one of the few women within the “emerging ministry” movement of the mid- to late-1990s and into the 2000 decade who was leading church planting teams and other kinds of ministry start-up endeavors.
One of her key points was how programs took precedence over people, and rules/regulations over relationships. (And, knowing some about the situations involved, I’d add that when “leaders” didn’t really know how to connect or communicate, they substituted quantitative statistics because they didn’t seem to get it about qualitative growth.) These kinds of “closed system” elements seem to be a prominent pattern, regardless of the age of the person in control, so it can’t all be blamed on a specific generation or worldview.
Like a number of my former church-planting and parachurch ministry leader friends, she has shifted more into social change projects. It’s more of an “open system” enterprise that doesn’t always end up with planting a church, but gets people connected into communities and teams that end up as magnets for “nones” and “dones,” and lead to ongoing conversations about spiritual growth and what that means when Jesus Christ is at the center.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Quick on the draw! 🙂
I guess that makes me third, unless Deb doesn’t get to be second because she’s one of the Deebs.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
That “programs over people” stuff isn’t just in churches/organized religion, either. It’s very prominent in public school systems – predetermined program sent down from higher takes precedence over individual student’s/class’/school’s actual needs. The one school that I worked in that allowed the flexibility and freedom for staff to adapt to specific needs is a private Christian school! But, we were an eclectic mix: Catholic, baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, non-denom ……..
In both churches and schools, “programs” are worthless if the people are not ready for them and on board with them. They actually can do more harm than good.
@ Debi Calvet:
Or maybe I was second since Deb apparently posted this. Don’t listen to me. I’m just babbling. 😀
I would run into a dead end if I described the pastor at my former church as a thug. A thug connotes a ugly ruffian, someone easily identified, a person anyone reasonable avoids. Unfortunately I found him smooth and with a glad hand, the abused on the other hand soon left and were written off as surly and unforgiving. The dirty deeds were done by minions so when I stacked up the transgressions that had been directed by the “pastor” they were waved off, “but he is so nice”.
Debi Calvet wrote:
You’re either a silver or bronze medal winner. The judges are reviewing the tape of the photo finish.
Someone with that list of qualities will, sadly, be incapable of change.
Bill M wrote:
Ahhh, yes. Like my ex-pastors/elders. The Ted Bundy type. But he [they] “couldn’t be THAT bad”, as the bodies pile up.
I think a huge problem is that a lot of people just don’t know their pastors at all. At the large church I used to go to, not one pastor on staff ever was around regularly in the classes I attended.
Pastors have become celebrities, with these carefully constructed personas, and they keep their fanbase at a distance.
I know people really want to believe their pastor is this amazing person, but a certain amount of denial is required to keep up that belief.
You don’t have to have a large church to carefully construct a persona or keep people from really knowing you. Sometimes, the pastor persona, is ideal for a person that is more comfortable hiding.
@ ishy:
It’s weird to think that people would then trust that pastor they never meet! I get trusting someone you know and being fooled. Trusting someone on tv or in the pulpit who you hear from for 50 minutes a week? Someone who isn’t even in the building with you in the case of gateway!
It’s like this weird groupthink deal.
This OP does get to the “heart/core” of the issue…. Abusive churches/leaders would not have any power if pewpeons did not let them! The pewpeons need to be mature in their own understandings of the foundational principles and not afraid to raise these principles….
thank goodness we have separation of church and state so we have principles/laws to keep these abusive churches out of our government! Think what it would be like if Mark Driscoll or John Piper had significant Federal Countrol!
If I were to read the list of traits out of context, I would assume the article is about NPD.
@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Those sort of archetypes already have control over minds and pocketbooks in Federal gov. They just don’t proclaim Christ in doing so. Frankly, I think church has gone the way of culture in the business of amassing followers and power with propaganda. People now look to them for life answers and to take care of them.
Lea wrote:
If you never meet your pastor, he is not your pastor. There is a growing trend, particularly in New Calvinist ranks, for “lead pastors” to distance themselves from their flocks. They don’t get to know those in the pew, they don’t visit sick folks, they don’t do funerals, they don’t answer member phone calls, they don’t counsel the hurting … in short, they don’t pastor! But, they find plenty of time to hang out in coffee shops and tweet their lives away or get their hair high-lighted at the beauty shop! This is not a mega-church problem, this also occurs in mega-wannabe churches. If there is any shepherding of the flock, those tasks are delegated to church elders who are hand-picked yes-men controlled by the pastor. A generation of young church leaders have re-defined the role of pastor: preach and teach once or twice a week (indoctrinate) and then disappear. Warning: you can’t trust them!!
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
How are Christians supposed to get to that point, though? Many of these take baby Christians or non-Christians and train them up to be followers.
I do think there are decent, mature Christians who go to these churches and have questions, but for the sake of their families and friends, they never make a loud enough noise, because of all the people saying “Shh! You’re being divisive!” or “You’re not trusting God about this!” or eventually “You need church discipline for causing trouble!”
Lea wrote:
It’s exactly what happens in celebrity culture, though. I am an armchair fan of a few things, but there are so many fans that completely believe they are intimate with the object of their fandoms. Sometimes they are really scary about it.
I was thinking earlier this morning about how Christian dating culture is just like this, especially in churches. “Don’t wait to get married!” “All your problems will be solved if you just marry him!”
I love Elisabeth Elliot, but Passion and Purity horrifies me. It basically says to pretend everything about yourself to please your man. I remember Mrs. Falwell used to say she never let Jerry Falwell see her without her hair and makeup done. Or Joshua Harris – just watch your mate from afar, then go make a serious commitment. Don’t actually get to know someone, because you might be tempted!
Christians should be the most honest, and usually we are the least.
ishy wrote:
Many TWW commenters resemble that remark! Church leaders who control, manipulate, and intimidate others will find themselves preaching the church empty of mature Christians. But, of course, pulpit thugs are not interested in spiritual folks. They target those who will unquestioningly follow; they don’t want members who test and try the spirits to see if they be from God. If it is apparent that discerning Christians have been coming to their church, abusive leaders will find a way to marginalize them as soon as possible.
ishy wrote:
This comment really got me thinking. At our last two churches, we have socialized with clergy and seminarians (men and women). I’ve invited them to lunch, or we’ve had them in to dinner. We don’t bombard them with invitations. Sometimes they accept and sometimes they decline–always graciously. Mealtime topics are sometimes religious and sometimes not.
They seem to consider knowing the members to be part of the job and vocation. I believe they enjoy social time with members; certainly they speak affectionately of the people in our congregation.
How unusual is this? Do other Wartburgers break bread with clergy?
Max wrote:
It’s probably why a number of TWWers have been formerly excommunicated by their churches.
I agree, they want the baby Christians and the followers, and they’ll weed out those who’ve developed their spiritual discernment.
ishy wrote:
Wait, what? How does that even work?
ishy wrote:
You’re right, but it’s really odd to me. And I know for a fact that I am personally too trusting of people, if they haven’t lied to me I tend to assume they aren’t lying. (unless they are very obvious, or wanting something like a salesman)
Friend wrote:
I haven’t except at church events, but I literally just joined. And am single, so inviting the pastor for a lunch is somewhat unlikely.
Friend wrote:
I had lunch with the well-known pastor of my former church. That church was not very big at the time, though. They stopped those lunches with the pastor not long after I went. He was always gracious to me, and always remembered my name, but I think unless you played golf, he didn’t “hang out” with church members on a regular basis when the church got a lot bigger.
Some of the bigger churches I went to had regular fellowship meals where the pastor attended, but they were often targeted at certain groups of people, like parents or 55+. Me, the childless single, didn’t qualify for such events.
@ Lea:
Actually, we have a female pastor too and I could see having lunch with her I guess. She’s closer to my age.
Lea wrote:
She said she got up an hour before he did to get ready. And maybe they had separate bedrooms. I always wondered about that myself.
ishy wrote:
Goodness! They must have had separate bedrooms for that, I think. I just don’t see…well, that’s probably more than I want to think about their lives but how can you have a true relationship without every seeing each other?
I do remember when I was younger getting up before my boyfriend to brush my teeth so when we kissed my breath would be fresh.
Lea wrote:
Maybe it gives one more space, I don’t know? But it goes to show that people go their entire lives living a false narrative.
I can’t see how that’s what God intended for us, though.
OK, so this thing about “thugs”.
A “thug” is hallmarked, not by the philosophy they hold, but by the way they treat people.
“Love” is also hallmarked, not by the penal nature of its soteriology, but by the way it makes you treat people.
Anybody can love people who flatter, agree with, fund, support, work alongside and otherwise vibe with them. God loves people who hate him, and Jesus made this point very forcefully: if you only love those who love you, what are you doing that’s special? Even Bill Johnson * probably does that. The Church is to be hallmarked by the fact that we love one another: but how is that supposed to work if we only allow people into our churches that we could love anyway? How is the god-given nature of a leader’s love shown by his handing out favours to people who agree with him?
I do wish churches had a more robust approach, when appointing people to leadership, to the question: how does he (more rarely, she) treat people?
*Bill Johnson is renowned as a heretic in many conservative circles, but this is not the only reason I like him.
I know I’m going to regret opening that can of worms.
Friend wrote:
This one does: sat with them at fellowship meals, fish fries/cook outs at church functions as well as homes church members, restaurants on special occasions, church trips etc. ( 3 of our former pastors are good friends – all three are locals, born and raised within 30 miles of where we live. One is a former auto mechanic, another retired from a TVA steam plant, the third used to work at a meat processing plant. They didn’t go into preaching for money and fame. I truly believe they were “called”.)
But, I’m in a rural area where average church attendance is less than 100 in most churches. I don’t think our area is much of a draw for the celebrity type preacher boyz.
Signs that you have ADHD: #1
You start typing a comment. By the time you’ve posted it, ten other new comments have appeared.
Debi Calvet wrote:
“one of the Deebs” = … a Deeb?
Max wrote:
Not only is he not your pastor, he is not a pastor at all. A pastor is, near as I can tell, just another humble servant, a shepherd, who was not a great leader with a throne, but a ritually unclean, lower class blue collar farm laborer, often a boy (like David was), who was considered utterly expendable, supposed to be willing to sacrifice his life for free range animals. That’s a shepherd, that’s a pastor.
There’s no position in the church that’s a CEO, separate-from-the-peons, who hand picks fellow leaders, punishes detractors and is the prime dispenser of wisdom for the fellowship, delivered in 30 to 45 minute chunks on an elevated stage under several spotlights each week. That is not a biblical job description. Jesus is the head, Jesus belongs under the spotlights.
Lea wrote:
I’m sure your reasons are sound. When I was single, though, I did ask our head pastor out to lunch a couple of times. He suggested a restaurant near the church, a place very popular with members. It never occurred to me that this might be considered questionable. I was just new to the church, and I wanted to talk about volunteering and some aspects of belief. Lunch in public seemed more comfortable–maybe even safer–than sitting with him in an office.
Gosh, I’m actually sitting here blushing… but the Billy Graham Rule was not part of my upbringing.
ishy wrote:
Crazy ……. How does one manage that? Not just separate bedrooms, but separate hotel rooms on trips, no swimming, fishing camping, and so on. ………. And what about going into labor and having children? If mommy goes into labor in the middle of the night, first priority is do the hair and make-up, and then pack the make-up and hairspray for the hospital visit? Daddy stays in the waiting room and can’t see the new mommy until her hair and make-up are done?
ishy wrote:
Mr. Falwell had his hair and makeup regularly done too.
Friend wrote:
Oh, nothing wrong with that. I just am not likely to do it. I don’t really feel the need to, I guess. Maybe if I needed to talk about something? I don’t know.
@ brad/futuristguy:
“…social change projects. It’s more of an “open system” enterprise that doesn’t always end up with planting a church, but gets people connected into communities and teams that end up as magnets for “nones” and “dones,” ”
++++++++++++++
what magnets are these? what projects? i haven’t noticed a feeling of magnetic pull… if these projects are near me, i’m sure i should be feeling it.
in short, these sound interesting. where would I find such social change projects? what names do they go by?
ishy wrote:
Yup.
Law Prof wrote:
America, meet 21st century church! When you are left wondering what happened to Jesus, get the heck out of there!
@ Max:
In my experience, mega Churches that’s Sunday services seem like circus acts rather than reverent religious events, to me, seldom attract mature Christian leaders (lay and clergy) in the first place.
It’s not that thoughtful, strong people aren’t speaking up about abuse or failing to prevent it in the first place, in many Churches with never-ending scandals.
They’re just going to lower profile and more mainstream Churches, which better suit their needs and priorities.
Most Churches do great work, in my opinion. They just don’t show up on the radar because they’re not in the business of promoting themselves like a circus act.
ishy wrote:
This just breaks my heart. I understand the need to offer activities for specific groups, but there should also be big and small activities for any and all. Coffee hour, Bible study with ample time to chat over refreshments, a Saturday morning tidying up the grounds with pizza to follow… how hard is it for churches to dream up opportunities for people to know one another and know clergy?
Possible update on Village Church: After Leslie Vernick critiqued them on her blog about their handling of Karen’s situation, they seem to have invited her and her colleague Chris Moles to come and teach them about better handling abuse: http://www.leslievernick.com/im-newlywed-hes-destructive-ive-separated-try-reconcile/
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That is definitely one of the challenges at TWW.
Max wrote:
Sometimes they’ll try to neutralize them by inviting them to be on the elder team and taking them into the inner circle, flattering them, wooing them, making them a part of the planning of things (carefully controlled by the pastor of course, who at bottom does the real planning). If they still object to the abuse going on, then they’re marginalized, disciplined, excommunicated, shunned, destroyed.
Becky wrote:
Hope it works, hope they’re sincere.
I would HIGHLY recommend “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” for those leaving an abusive situation. My husband and I left our abusive (and highly dysfunctional for that matter) so called church in 1995. That book was my lifeline to sanity.
I read and reread the book, marking passages and dog-earing the pages that spoke to me. I think I used that book so much, it fell apart.
My husband and I kept a few copies to give out to others who followed us out of that church.
With the internet being in it’s infancy, we didn’t have the resources we have now.
That’s why I love what the Deebs and others are doing to expose those wolves who prey on the flock. How I longed to have someone to talk to who understood what we went through.
ishy wrote:
I haven’t read this book, but I did read “Shadow of the Almighty”. There’s something constantly dissonant about it. Largely taken from Jim Elliot’s own diaries, it’s a stream of self-flagellation and regret over not being religious enough or of doing (and even enjoying) non-religious activities. As though the diaries themselves were written to someone else, in a desperate attempt to prove something to that someone.
Because Jim Elliot died, at a young age, in the mission field, his life-story tends not to receive much dispassionate scrutiny. I say this, having a history of extravagantly sacrificial lifestyle choices that have sometimes been foolhardy, that God frequently did not demand, and that he has not always owned. But I remain genuinely uncertain as to whether this martyrdom was really God’s plan for Elliot. And I am a little concerned at the sound of Passion and Purity.
Friend wrote:
These work for smaller churches, but megachurches just have too many people to do stuff like that. They had larger events, but people were always divvied up into small areas.
And keeping people in their age/status groups is appealing to a lot of people, who want easy friends and little challenge to make friends who are not like them. Some of the most painful events I’ve ever been to were womens ministry events, where I was treated like a leper because I wasn’t married with kids.
Most people have to be trained to go outside of their comfort zone, unfortunately.
@ Law Prof:
“A pastor is, near as I can tell, just another humble servant, a shepherd, who was not a great leader with a throne, but a ritually unclean, lower class blue collar farm laborer, often a boy (like David was), who was considered utterly expendable, supposed to be willing to sacrifice his life for free range animals. That’s a shepherd, that’s a pastor.”
++++++++++++++
i so agree with your entire comment. one of the reasons “I’m out”.
but i truly wonder…. why in the world do i need a pastor? even asking the question totally bugs me — i wouldn’t need to ask it if wasn’t aleady assumed that a person needs this extra human being in their life to ‘lead them’ and tell them what to do.
i mean…. yuck! i’m a full=fledged responsible adult and proud of it! i don’t need to ‘be led’, ‘be guided’, be corralled as if i’m helplessly waiting there saying ‘feed me feed me’. i can feed myself. i mean, i’m an adult, right?
i think the original intent
ishy wrote:
That’s awful. The good thing about mega’s is that there are generally enough people to find a group where you do fit within whatever the boundaries are? But maybe it’s better for us to have to stretch out of our comfort zones.
Funny enough, I think I may have joined the group for young married families by accident. So we’ll see how that goes. Those tend to be the people I meet, because I go with a member with small kids and I have been meeting her friends.
elastigirl wrote:
See, this gets into what that function actually is. Does a teacher have be leading you? Or can they just teach? Sunday School has a teacher, but they are not running your life, you know? (I mean, some places maybe they are, but they don’t have to be!) I don’t see why the pastor can’t be the same.
Lea wrote:
A number of the megas in Atlanta intentionally leave out singles. Northpoint started with a huge singles population, and they started dropping all their singles events until most things were targeted at married families.
My old church didn’t make it a secret that everything was based around kids and their families. The pastor started preaching sermons on it. And they barely tried at all when it came to ministering to singles. Not to mention that I was actually asked to leave a class that wasn’t designated for married couples, but that’s who they wanted.
Singles are too messy for a lot of churches. And I think they’re viewed as transient non-tithers.
ishy wrote:
What???? That’s insane. Sometimes people tell these stories and I just marvel that anyone could be that impolite.
ishy wrote:
Hm.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
What you’re describing here reminds me of St. John Rivers, a character in Jane Eyre; he’s a full blooded Calvinist missionary who’s hellbent on sacrificing himself on the mission field and being virtuous and righteous and oh so Christ-like–but has absolutely no compassion and warmth and is nothing like Christ.
@ ishy:
I agree with ishy..
@ Becky:
Thank you for letting us know.
Lea wrote:
I totally agree. Teaching is one thing, diddling with people’s lives is quite another. If one can only learn from people who ‘know you’ and whom you know, then I have some diplomas that I need to send back to the university. People taught me not just the science but the art of health care both in nursing school and in med school and especially residency but nobody ‘knew me’ or diddled with my life.
Frankly, I hold would be diddlers suspect.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes!
I love E. Elliot but her views on being a woman and on dating just really sit wrong with me. I stay away from her relationship books and read her others.
elastigirl wrote:
I agree. There no such thing as this one leader in the church who’s there to guide you around called “pastor”. If you’re meeting together with other people who follow Jesus and not pompous men, you’ll see biblical roles and gifts operating.
Some people are older and have proven themselves to be reliable (not all older people are reliable at all, some are emotional infants with wrinkles) and have learned from mistakes and thus are very useful to that fellowship for giving wise advice, they look out for you, they care about you, they’re to be good examples to people and especially help younger people out, but never thinking they’re “all that” or have any right to demand anyone do anything–those are elders.
Various people in a fellowship are going to have various gifts given by God, such as they’re good at teaching–those are teachers or God gives them particular insight into what’s going on in another or even what’s going to happen–they’re prophets
Some are the rare types willing to die if need be to serve others, always doing the jobs no one wants to do, taking the last place in line, not exalting themselves–those are pastors.
Everyone serves everyone, some hammer you when you have it coming “Dude, what were you THINKING?”, everyone sharpens each other’s iron, no one thinks they have any particular authority over anyone else, they know Jesus has the authority and that they’re all trying to grope in His direction, everyone is supposed to be on the look out for superapostles who try to infiltrate the fellowship and take your money and abuse you and put the spotlight on themselves–you get together and throw them out, because they’re up to no good. You hope they learn and humble themselves. And that last group, the ones you throw out–those are the ones Dee and Deb expose here.
Lea wrote:
married with no children is also a weird in between spot in the church culture. You have no “right” to be tired, overwhelmed or need help because “you don’t have kids so you don’t know what tired or overwhelmed is.” *eye roll* Most of the time I’m just as lonely in church culture as I was when I was single.
Law Prof wrote:
Guess things haven’t changed much from Bronte’s time.
ishy wrote:
http://baylyblog.com/blog/2009/08/interview-elisabeth-elliot
I fear a cage wrote:
Yeah, I hear you. And if you’re a single parent, you’re really out of luck, because you’re exhausted and navigating alone, but not allowed to mingle with the couples.
@ Nancy2:
Uh oh. This is going to be bad, isn’t it? I didnt’ realize those bayly people were in charge of the CBMW group at some point. Apparently if you make it past 25 you are supposed to be single ‘for the kingdom’ because men don’t want you anymore. Thanks Elizabeth!
Nancy2 wrote:
You had enough unity for a general Christian consensus but enough diversity so no single style/type of Christianity could dominate. Good balance point, but very rare and hard to achieve.
ishy wrote:
From what I’ve heard, megas do most activities on a large scale. But how much of that is necessary?
I’ve belonged to two churches with 1000+ members, and both have an assortment of activities that are not going to attract more than a few dozen people. Weekday services are small. The hospitality ministry is tiny, as are the new baby ministry and the meals ministry. Among the hugest activities (in addition to Sunday services) are an annual picnic, a collection of Christmas gifts for poor families, a fall homecoming meal, and the yearly business meeting where we elect leaders and debate the budget.
Lea wrote:
Holds for men, too, though not as much.
Didn’t Bee Jay Driscoll say if you haven’t married by then, God MUST be calling you to go on the faraway mission field “and be martyred”?
@ Nancy2:
Oh my goodness.
I am pretty sure this lady would not be my friend if she told me that! And then this:
Bah. We know married people have zero problem running around with other married people! So let’s stop being naïve and judgmental.
ishy wrote:
We call those “fanboys”.
Or “stalkers”.
Lea wrote:
I noticed that nothing was said in that interview about widowed women with small children (like EE) – only single women were pointed out.
@ Nancy2:
One more:
Is she saying she loves the men, and the women ought to stuff it? Or is she saying the men should love the ‘shrews’.
I fear a cage wrote:
Look who got it right though:
Olive Liefeld in “How I Changed My Mind about Women in Leadership”:
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybXbcA2HTbUC&pg=PT166
“‘They may ask you to speak behind a screen in the back of the hall. That is how the last woman missionary did it.’ At first I thought my friend was kidding and laughed, but he was serious. He wanted to warn me. This was in 1956, and I was on my way to speak at a small Brethren assembly in Canada. I had been home from Ecuador for a few months after my husband, Peter Fleming, along with four other missionaries, were killed by the Auca (now properly known as Waorani) Indians….”
Nancy2 wrote:
Fish frys huh? If I had a star trek transporter I’d show up for sure! St. Matthew’s (Catholic) in my hood has fish frys every friday during lent, I loooooove em’!
Becky wrote:
I think in all the hoopla about TVC and Chandler and his faux apology, yes faux, the fact that TVC has harbored and sheltered a confessed pedophile and criminal user of child sex abuse images has been forgotten. I reported Jordan Root and spoke with the Dallas police child exploitation unit about TVC. The church did not report him.
The protection of children at TVC and those in Dallas and elsewhere that Root may have harmed should be top priority, but it hasn’t been at all, only TVC and Matt Chandler’s image. Root confessed to use of child sexual abuse images and abuse of victims. Where is he now? Still under the protection and “care” of TVC?
What a dangerous racket TVC and Chandler has going on. Real people get hurt, badly.
@ Lea:
“See, this gets into what that function actually is. Does a teacher have be leading you? Or can they just teach? Sunday School has a teacher, but they are not running your life, you know? (I mean, some places maybe they are, but they don’t have to be!) I don’t see why the pastor can’t be the same.”
+++++++++++++
well, clearly the NT differentiates between teacher and pastor. i really want to know — WTF is a pastor and what is he/she for, anyway? besides an invented career path? (apologies to mot and other pastors who are excellent human beings)
do we even know what the original intent was? does anyone even ask these questions? or have we taken insular to ridiculous proportions in behaving as though no christian people ever existed until the 21st century?
Muff Potter wrote:
Yup. Fish (bass, cat, croppie …….)Hushpuppies, slaw, corn on the cob, potato salad, chess pie, a wide variety of pot luck foods ……… Everything except some good ole Kentucky moonshine – we are Baptists, doncha know!
coming your way…. a comment from elastigirl (yet to show up)…. it’s a really good one!
Lea wrote:
Sounds like “the kingdom” needs better men.
Amy Smith wrote:
They have made it plain that adult males are all that matter.
elastigirl wrote:
Well, duhh.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You’re so smart.
Nancy2 wrote:
Notice also that she did not just talk about singleness but rather about virginity being offered to God. There is a whole area of thinking about virginity itself, actual anatomic and physiologic virginity, that crops up in rather much thinking as sort of the music in the background which, once you know to listen for it is pretty noticeable. This is not just true about EE but if you listen you can hear a lot of people going in that direction.
I could be more blunt, but not in this public forum. Suffice it to say that Paul did the same thing, making a difference between virgins who might choose lifelong celibacy and younger widows whom he advised to marry again and have more children. He also noted the older widow who had only been married once but who had dedicated her life to good works but he did not say that her subsequent unmarried condition was analogous to the choice to remain a celibate virgin. There is a difference in how he addressed the issues. This idea/attitude/feeling is more prevalent in some Christian traditions than in others.
Law Prof wrote:
I’m not a Calvinist in any sense in regular usage. Apart from that, you’re spot on!
okrapod wrote:
I noticed that too. It is not YOU. It is not even your singleness that is important. It is one thing.
Velour wrote:
I think you’ve coined a new phrase – the ‘Ted Bundy’ type. That is exactly what my abusive ex-pastor was like. So likable that it was hard to see the flaws and glaring red flags. In the case of my ex-pastor, even when you saw the flaws, the underlying threats kept you from saying anything. It’s the most mind-boggling phenomenon!!
Ted Bundy had a creepy cult following up until his execution. His charisma was undeniable – yet this guy was one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. I think it would be fair to compare some of these soul killing pastors to Ted Bundy.
@ Law Prof:
“they know Jesus has the authority and that they’re all trying to grope in His direction,”
++++++++++++++
sounds like you may be a fan of one of my favorite things in the bible:
“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being,…”
i love the mental image — in the dark, can’t see, shuffling along with caution, arms/hands out in front of us searching & preparing for the next unseen thing, but Jesus is just opposite us, walking backwards, his arms/hands outstretched towards us, saying, “that’s right,…that’s it,…you got it,…you’re almost there,….not far now…keep going…”
Law Prof wrote:
I see the same here but with the character Abner Hale in Michener’s Hawaii.
Lea wrote:
I gather from the secular news that Christianity is not the only Abrahamic religion that has some of that thinking in it.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
that must be the first time i’ve ever felt complimented by “duhh”.
i’m just going to reprint my copy here, and take out what was surely the trigger.
my frustration is growing by the minute, here — what’s a pastor?? what was the original intent? why is christian culture so non-thinking? i mean, at this rate they deserve to be seen as helpless, dumb sheep. (a self-fulfilling thing? give a man a paycheck to wear the pastor hat, elevate him to spiritual grand poobah, everyone says “ooohh aaaaahhhh the chosen one! come to save me out of my boredom and loneliness and feeling of meaninglessness”.)…………here goes:
—————–
@ Lea:
“See, this gets into what that function actually is. Does a teacher have be leading you? Or can they just teach? Sunday School has a teacher, but they are not running your life, you know? (I mean, some places maybe they are, but they don’t have to be!) I don’t see why the pastor can’t be the same.”
+++++++++++++
well, clearly the NT differentiates between teacher and pastor. i really want to know — what the flying fick is a pastor and what is he/she for, anyway? besides an invented career path? (apologies to mot and other pastors who are excellent human beings)
do we even know what the original intent was? does anyone even ask these questions? or have we taken insular to ridiculous proportions in behaving as though no christian people ever existed until the 21st century?
Amy Smith wrote:
Like I keep harpin’, it’s just a question of time before one of these guys (Chandler, whoever) really effs up and tries a cover-up that won’t cover-up. The gavel will come down hard and heavy.
Muff Potter wrote:
I hope so, but I hope not. Ya know? These misogynistic, misleading, pretty boyz need to be stopped and put in their places, but someone will have to be badly damaged for that to happen. I don’t know which is worse!
ION: Cricket
The second Test between Bangladesh and England begins tomorrow in Dhaka. The first Test was a splendid affair – could have gone either way right up to the final wicket. England will have to bat better than they have so far on the tour, though.
IHTIH
elastigirl wrote:
Yes! I’m wondering if we shouldn’t be looking into that a little more when we organize church. Elders are supposed to be leading by example and teachers are supposed to be teaching. So, how do we get to this top down pastor in charge of it all state?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
There is a cable channel in the states called ION. Dont’ think they play cricket though.
Nancy2 wrote:
Right, and what about those times when one of you is wretchedly sick?
Seems like this is 2 strangers living under the same roof. To me, the great thing about being married is having a companion I am completely comfortable with and can be myself with, ‘for better and for worse’.
okrapod wrote:
Agreed, this thread or forum is probably not the place for it. Suffice it to say though, I think that human sexuality needs to be rethought and reexamined with an eye for a kind of responsible pragmatism rather than bullet-point evangelical dogma.
Anna wrote:
Thanks.
I give credit to the crime shows I watch online. Some applicable insights into human nature and abusers elsewhere, including the church.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
YIH
TYVM
Lea wrote:
I’m sure you’re right – the clue’s in the word “States”, really!
Friend wrote:
YW
Muff Potter wrote:
Jesus was not a prude. He was, however, dead serious about people living up to their commitments and responsibilities. But if one gets too pragmatic, think TEC, one may find oneself chastised by the religious powers that be. Personally I am not sure where to draw some lines, but I am sure that we have too many man-made lines as it is.
What is a Pastor? Well in the early ’80’s, my husband was dying from terminal cancer at home. He passed away just after midnight and our Pastor drove 10 miles up a dark winter Oregon country road and stayed with us while the coroner, undertaker, came and for as long as we needed him.
elastigirl wrote:
This is a whole different paradigm from the conventional definition of “success” that relies on a vision-caster, and people then cooperating by taking a role in the organizational program.
Instead, it is a participatory community, where people collaborate in doing something that emerges organically out of their relationships, interests, passion for justice and constructive change, etc., and they make a role that reflects their purpose.
This is similar to how some non-profits get started, but a key difference may be that it involves people from diverse backgrounds of faith and/or philosophy. It may turn out to be short-term or long-term, but the relationships that are built tend to continue — as do the conversations about “transformation” — both spiritual formation and social change. From my network of people who are missional and post-emerging, post-progressive, post-Christendom, (i.e., “dones”) they continue connecting and serving locally in ministry, just not in the conventional church-based framework.
This other whole approach has more similarities to the traveling teams of apostles and their mentoring protégés, like we see in the book of Acts especially, and in church history with the Celtic missionaries who traveled and some of the Celtic monasteries which were built along major travelways and served as places of hospitality, rest, and learning.
For case studies in the models used and projects built by an ongoing network, I’d suggest Matryoshka Haus. (Matryoshka are the Russian nesting dolls, and it was chosen as the network name for the implication of many different elements inside one another.) I’ve been involved with MHaus since its early days, almost 15 years. Explore the website for more …
http://www.matryoshkahaus.com/
Current MHaus projects are Good Brunches (which is a way of bringing together people who learn to converse and listen across the boundaries of race, gender, and economic class to become communities) and the Change Makers Toolkit (which is a series of team-based immersion learning experiences that “game-i-fy” abstract principles — such as strategy development and project design — and “teach” them through realistic simulation games). The whole thing is the organic church planting paradigm for non-church plants, so to speak.
@ Friend:
yes, our liturgical family calls it ‘Eucharist’
@ elastigirl:
Here’s the link to “In da Haus” — the occasional blog for Matryoshka Haus. That will show and tell about the history of some of these kinds of social enterprise projects and experiences that build community and incubate social change projects without them necessarily becoming conventional church plants.
http://www.indahaus.net/
okrapod wrote:
TEC? What is TEC?
Muff Potter wrote:
The Episcopal Church
Friend wrote:
Yes. Many times. It did not help up us see what we didn’t want to see, regrettably. We are very dense, slow, obtuse, naive, and thick.
Gram3 wrote:
Trusting. Kind. Decent.
@ Lea:
Love this! 🙂
Becky wrote:
Interesting news, and thank you for the link. Not addressing this rant to you, but the problem is not that they did not handle Karen’s abuse optimally. The problem is that their non-negotiable doctrinal dogmas are what caused their vile abuse of Karen Hinckley. It was not a “mistakes were made” kind of thing or an “insufficiently sensitive” kind of thing. They did what they did because that is the natural consequence of their deeply-held ideology. It was utterly predictable. Idealogoues do not change through dialog or “listening” events. However, idealogues who have had their ideology exposed for what it is might well invite a critic to speak or send a sweet note just to pretend that they are not, in fact, irretrievably bound to their ideology.
I say this from some fairly recent personal experience with those kinds of tactics. I will believe the The Village ELDERS have repented when they repent of their abusive ideology. I do not think they will do that, however, because their ideology is where their identities are.
Friend wrote:
No, not like you are saying. Our church has Wednesday night suppers at the church and the one and only time I was there the pastor was there. But other than that not really. Actually I have only sat down for a meal with the pastor and his family and our family once in my entire life, something like 30 or 40 years ago.
Let me say, this may not be the way a lot of people want things to be or even believe things ought to be, but I consider it under the heading of boundaries. I also think this may partly explain why I am not either a none or a done in spite of some untoward circumstances from time to time.
bc wrote:
Beautiful example of loving-kindness in ministry
Christiane wrote:
this, from the early Christian Church:
““For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off.
For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off.
And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) for restraint should temper righteousness.
For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?
Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
“Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28)
So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God.
Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;
persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others . . .”
St. Ambrose (340-379 A.D.),
a Father and Doctor of the Church
bc wrote:
this, from the early Christian Church:
““For he who endeavours to amend the faults of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off.
For we read that the Shepherd in the Gospel (Luke 15:5) carried the weary sheep, and did not cast it off.
And Solomon says: “Be not overmuch righteous;” (Ecclesiastes 7:17) for restraint should temper righteousness.
For how shall he offer himself to you for healing whom you despise, who thinks that he will be an object of contempt, not of compassion, to his physician?
Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
“Come unto Me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.” (Matthew 11:28)
So, then, the Lord Jesus refreshes, and does not shut out nor cast off, and fitly chose such disciples as should be interpreters of the Lord’s will, as should gather together and not drive away the people of God.
Whence it is clear that they are not to be counted among the disciples of Christ, who think that harsh and proud opinions should be followed rather than such as are gentle and meek;
persons who, while they themselves seek God’s mercy, deny it to others . . .”
St. Ambrose (340-379 A.D.),
a Father and Doctor of the Church
@ brad/futuristguy:
“community and incubate social change ”
++++++++++++++++
social change, as in indoctrination into a belief system or helping to meet practical needs, kindness, generosity of heart and means, etc.?
no need to answer, as i can find out for myself by looking at what you mentioned. thank you, brad, for responding.
@ elastigirl:
I typed up a longer comment on the background of this different paradigm, and it links to the example of a network I’m part of. It’s in moderation at the moment, so should show up later.
Lea wrote:
Marry the shrew. I become the Sultan. Mmmmm…the idea has merit!
okrapod wrote:
Interesting. Growing up, my mom was on staff and the pastors kids were all my age. So there was natural interaction. But as a result, I’ve been very cynical too, because I knew all the gossip. Maybe that keeps me from falling head over heels in worship of a pastor?
I don’t feel any particular need to cultivate a relationship with the ministers at my new church, but I have been present at multiple church meals where they were eating and had conversation with them.
Lea wrote:
The expression “love someone to death” always bothers me. Two completely opposing concepts. Is it revealing something darker under the guise of love? Passive aggressive?
“You better love him” – love doesn’t spring into life due to a threat. Yes, you can choose to love someone in the Christian sense but one hopes for something more in the marriage kind of love.
And, btw, just UGH on this whole article.
I’d like to ask the question, deadly to what? Deadly to the man’s position and desires? Deadly to the image the church is trying to present?
Maybe if bitterness comes in, there might be good reason for it. Maybe honesty is called for.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks, gotcha’. And yeah TEC has always been in the cross-hairs of fundagelicals or any other group who thinks they’ve got God and the Bible all figured out.
siteseer wrote:
I took that as deadly to love. What bothered me is the idea that bitterness just ‘comes’. Like nothing prompted it. IIRC she was talking about people who started off to be ‘businessmen’ and turned into pastors – which then required their wives to dump whatever they thought they might be doing with their lives to be a ‘pastors wife’ which is a vocation to Elizabeth that you aren’t allowed to pass up or you are a horrible woman.
So…maybe this is a good example of a time when a couple should have actually TALKED about what they were going to do with their lives and come to a decision together? Maybe? Before you force someone into a position they never signed up for and bitterness just shows up out of nowhere.
Lea wrote:
Bitterness won’t just come as long as the wife is submissive, compliant, putty in the husband’s hands.
At my now former church (after they put off their meeting about their “Family Tree” shepherding scheme, I wasn’t going to stick around till they *did* get around to discussing it) the pastor is definitely in the vision casting camp. He devoted a three week series to it, talking about how God put a vision of a triangle into his head while at some unidentified Bible college (and perhaps a diploma mill since he won’t divulge the name of said Bible college). Oh yeah, and apparently while driving down the highway, God gave him a number as a goal for the size of the church.
And of course the pew sitters are in charge of getting to his magic number. Thanks to “Operation Andrew,” a scheme that leadership apparently learned while visiting the Billy Graham Library and talking to someone there. Operation Andrew is loosely based on John 1:40-41 where Andrew brings his brother Simon to follow Jesus. But, putting it nicely, it’s “evangelism by manipulation” as they want members to involve themselves in the lives of an unbeliever for six weeks, feign interest in them, then drop the bombshell and bring (not invite, but BRING) them to church after the six weeks. Rinse and repeat for the next six weeks. (For the record, I don’t remember reading anything about six weeks of manipulation in John 1:40-41.)
Oh yeah, and raise $50,000 by next October to start the process of moving into a permanent building. On top of tithes, of course.
Most of the rest of the congregation are his yes-men and women. The mention of both this “Operation Andrew” nonsense and the $50,000 building plan were met with almost universal applause and approval. I might have been the sole holdout.
Every 5 or 10 minutes or so during a sermon, he’ll stop and tell the congregation, “High five your neighbor and tell them . Tell them like you mean it!” and makes them do it again if they aren’t loud enough. Like he needs affirmation from the pew sitters that they go along with whatever he just said. I don’t participate and often rub my eyes or something so people don’t *want* to high five me.
I went Oct 16 and decided to quietly leave afterward, that being my last day in attendance. Later I unfriended all church people on my Facebook. So far nobody’s tried to re-friend me, so maybe they’re taking the hint that I’m moving on.
AnonInNC wrote:
Should be “tell them some “important” point he just got done saying two seconds before. Tell them like you mean it!” Looks like formatting erased that part of my comment.
@ AnonInNC:
I think a Bye-Five was wise.
@ Lea:
Maybe it’s because of attending Covenant Life and the seeming “perfect” example of Carolyn Mahaney, (I never could relate to her heels and dresses or fancy slacks, never mind her life style!) but I still HATE women’s ministry events!
As for segregated events, I believe they have their place, but I also enjoy being around people of mixed ages and marital status.
Final thought before bedtime:
Are there any other Wartburgers who can’t stand either the 1812 Overture or the Blue Danube Waltz?
AnonInNC wrote:
Lying, flattering and setting people up. For what? To perpetrate some Ponzi scheme? No, to serve the Kingdom of God.
Absolutely disgusting. Reprehensible leader, blinded followers. God help them and those whom they manipulate.
ishy wrote:
What of Elizabeth Elliott’s work can you share with me that you like? I’m afraid I never gave her a chance, because the first thing I ever from her teachings was her non-scholarly opinioninated chapter in Wayne Grudem’s Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (chapter 25) http://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/RBMW.pdf
AnonInNC wrote:
Yeah, if being told to do it in that venue would be sincere. I just hate that type of stuff.
When I was a young child, my family was close with the 2 ministers of the 2 churches we went to. One of them was close friends. After we left the 2nd church, my family never became close friends with the minister of the next church. Not to say they didn’t like him, but I think they were afraid of being hurt again. I totally understand. In all of my married life, I’ve never been close friends with the pastors of the churches we went to. One would only call me when he needed me for something. Not to check on me if I was sick or something like that.
Patti wrote:
Chiming in but I enjoyed her keep a quiet heart Devo book just ignore her relationship section
Law Prof wrote:
Sad state of affairs.
okrapod wrote:
An intriguing thought, thanks.
My original concern was about clergy in abusive churches, who have nothing BUT boundaries, so that they would never have lunch or dinner with rank-and-file members. Of course, having meals together could blur a useful line between being a pastor and being a pal (or extortionist, predator…).
I know there are a lot of bad pastors and elder groups out there but lets take some time to remember those sweet pastors who are totally unlike the above men and women. My pastor has the kindest sweetest heart for everyone. He goes to prisons, just started an ESL class because he hurts for immigrants, is helping a family from South America whose visa ran out and may get deported. who almost never mentions money and has a box in the back to put money if you wish, drives an old beat up car, married to the same women for decades, drove 4 hours up from Tennessee to Ohio to pray with a church member and be with their family while they went for specialized surgery and then returned home the same day. Those folks are out there lets remember to pray for them to stay the course and not become a Marxist
Gram3 wrote:
Or you freely gave and fully expected the love of Christ. Several of us have found ourselves in that predicament, alas.
Christiane wrote:
An excellent thought to remember. Nonetheless, although ‘twould be lovely if Holy Communion sufficed to build healthy connections between pastors and worshipers, more than one bad pastor has served Communion…
Harley wrote:
Wow! When my husband was out of commission due to a bad fall from a 12′ ladder, our pastor and his daughter came over and mowed our 4 acre yard! But, I have known this pastor my whole life, and I graduated from school with his daughter.
Lea wrote:
Look how many people send money into TBN and the 700 Club.
The blog post heading, Thugs In The Pulpit, would make a good a rap song name or rap group name.
Daisy wrote:
Lecrae’s next big hit song?
@ Velour:
LOL! 😀
Law Prof wrote:
In Christianese, it’s called “Multiplying Ministry”, not a Ponzi/Pyramid Scheme.
AnonInNC wrote:
Reminds me of Cal Poly Campus Crusade the time there was a Billy Graham Crusade at Anaheim Stadium. Word went out to “bring your unsaved friends to the Crusade and Get Them Saved”. And…
Panic reaction among all the rank-and-file. “OH NO! I’VE GOT TWO WEEKS TO MAKE A HEATHEN FRIEND AND GET HIM TO THE CRUSADE! WHAT DO I DO? WHAT DO I DO?”
Lea wrote:
Ah yes, that makes sense and truly it is deadly to love. I agree, bitterness doesn’t generally just spring up out of nowhere. But if you have no say in your life it sure can tend towards bitterness. Both people need to be on board and in it together.
chuck wrote:
I love to hear this. And you are right, pray for them. We thought we’d found such a place but then in came James MacDonald and Manhood and all of that.
AnonInNC wrote:
The church I used to attend did this program in the 2000’s (2006 I think – when Franklin – not the the turtle Franklin – came to town). The goal then was to lead people to the Franklin Graham crusade. I thought it was a bit cultish.
Hope that you’re enjoying your Sundays now, it used to be pretty much a wasted day when I went to church but now it’s a great day to get things done.
Daisy wrote:
You’re in charge of writing lyrics and a debut performance of it at Camp Backbone.
It has a nice ring to it. Like Prince’s piece, performed by so many Jazz musicians, called “Thieves in the Temple.” We should perform that one as well!
Velour wrote:
Here is Prince’s “Thieves in the Temple” performed by Herbie Hancock and Michael Brecker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6I4oTtfVfI
Gram3 wrote:
When their intent is control, then no matter how hard they try to be nice about it they will drift back to outright abuse.
@ Former CLCer:
“I still HATE women’s ministry events!”
++++++++++++
me, too. completely. i think the women who plan them cater to female stereotypes instead of actually considering the unique assortment of further unique human beings who will be attending.
truth be told, no woman i know fits any stereotype. why do so many go along with it all?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
wait – what – ‘Shadow of the Almighty’ was taken from Jim Elliot`s diaries? Surly the things he wrote there would have been between him and his LORD – not for others to read – i am sure that should anyone read almost anyone`s prayer/personal diary it would make pretty turgid reading. All that ‘stream of consciousness’ going on.
Or maybe he did intend it to be published – in which case i`m wrong of course.
elastigirl wrote:
Me three.
I resented that the men at my ex-church got to do all of the cool stuff – baseball games at Giants in San Francisco, mountains, golfing, fishing, etc. – and I got stuck in teas and crafts and every event I had to go to required pantyhose and dressing up.
clarissa wrote:
The books were written/edited by Elizabeth, with the bulk of the content being direct quotes from Jim’s diaries. I don’t know that he intended them to be published as such. They just read a bit oddly: as though he were trying to prove something to someone, or wishing he were something other than what he was.
It’s a combination of things that it’s hard to put my finger on. You know the feeling you get in a prayer meeting sometimes, that the person who’s praying at the moment is talking to the people in the room, not to God at all? (Sometimes it’s overt and crude, of course, but that’s not what I mean here.) That, and the well-known Shakespeare paraphrase The lady doth protest too much, methinks…
IOW, he writes so effusively about his disdain for anything that is not “in the field” and his fervent desire to be used of God, but I’m left wondering whether all of it was a cover for something that he dared not admit even to himself: that he actually didn’t want to be a missionary at all, but was exhausted with the burden of obligation to be an on-fire Christian and just wanted to get a real job and live a normal life. What I simply didn’t catch from any of his writings was any sense that he actually liked God.
As I say: it made for a very strange read. I put it down thinking I still had no idea who Jim Elliot really was.
FW Rez wrote:
It is; its just that the two groups appesr to be, all too often, made up of the same people.
bc wrote:
Yes! That is a real man of God.
I have recently become convinced that I must stop calling preachers “pastor”. It can foster an unhealthy dependence on one (VERY human) man to be your shepherd. Jesus Christ is the one and only Good Shepherd; the rest are simply the person who preaches on Sunday. He may be wonderful, he may be horrible, or anything in between. We are called to be servants, not the lords of the manors.
This was something that came late to me, but having grasped it, I can move forward in the freedom for which Christ has set us free.
Daisy wrote:
I was thinking about writing some comedy songs. Maybe I have a career in bad theology parody?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
He was very young, and I don’t think any of us were as mature about theology and other things in life as we thought we were at that age. And he was probably a lot more scared than he tried to sound, to keep himself from being afraid.
I’m trying to remember which book it was of Elisabeth’s that I liked, but it’s been quite a while.
ishy wrote:
I agree. As I think about this, I’m reminded of a middle-manager in the church in Glasgow who was appointed to “disciple” me – I was even younger, around 23, at the time. Anyway: said middle-manager was, looking back, desperately insecure and unhappy. Like Jim Elliot, he made a lot of noise about hard work, serving and sacrifice; unlike Jim Elliot, as far as I am aware, he was deeply embittered about it and took his hidden resentment against God out on others in the church.
About Jim Elliott. I read EE’s publication of his diary long ago, and if I read it today I would perhaps see it differently. None the less let me say this.
Based on my own close encounter of the difficult kind with a certain type of protestant fundamentalism, specifically with an IFB missionary family, I did not find anything peculiar about JE’s thoughts except that he seemed to be a really good example of the kind of thinking that was going on at the time in that sort of fundamentalism. One idea about missions, and for that about any call on one’s life by God, was that God called people to do the very thing that they least wanted to do and then changed the person’s thinking and attitude about the thing when the person responded in obedience to God. Thus, if one person said he really wanted to be a missionary it would be looked at as perhaps not a call from God but merely a person following their own desires. However, if one could describe how being a missionary was the last think on the planet that one wanted and that one had struggled long and hard with God over the matter and then ‘surrendered’ to God and was then ‘willing’ to go forth then that was seen as the prescribed picture of how God deals with people and how people should respond to some ‘call’. In other words, it is not a genuine call if you are willing to do it and certainly not if you think it is a great idea; it is only genuine if you are somehow forced by the circumstances or by God.
This idea can be seen in some of the ‘saints stories’ of how somebody did not really want to be the abbot of the monastery, or conversely wanted to live a quiet life in the monastery but was ordered by the pope or the king to go forth and do something more admired by the masses for example, and then the person did it out of ‘obedience’ but not because they wanted to. The operative word apparently being ‘obedience’ as opposed to glad to get the chance to do something or other.
One is reminded of Moses who tried to pass up the job opportunity but could not out-argue God. Or like Jesus in Gethsemane, and we now talk only that he was willing and shudder at the thought of submission to the will of the Father as a variable in the equation.
I think that is part of what may be going on with JE. He was obedient perhaps in his own thinking, and perhaps our current ideas about obedience may have taken such a back seat to almost anything else that we tend to view things now from a different hierarchy of values. IMO we don’t know what to do with some of these issues any more, and probably never did.
As a pastor’s wife – of a denomination and church so unlike the thugs that it makes my teeth hurt, all the comments about breaking bread with your pastor are really hitting home with me. My husband was the youth minister whilst in seminary at this church before becoming the pastor. We moved in the parsonage (which is a surreal and bizarre situation!) next door last October and had a Christmas party in December and invited the church. So this wonderful older lady named Marion came equipped with a housewarming present and the second she stepped in the house she said, ‘Oh my! I haven’t been here since 1979!’. I wept at that moment, knowing that pastors were told to ‘stay away’ from relationships, and congregants were shy from ‘making friends’ with the pastor & their family. Without real relationships, so much trouble, hurt and division happens. And the thugs gain the pulpit.
okrapod wrote:
This was exactly how I felt about going to seminary. I didn’t want to be there at all. I enjoy learning, and I wanted to minister to people, and the job I was going to do would have been helped greatly by a master’s degree. But I didn’t want to go at all. I still can’t express exactly why.
I maybe regret choosing Southeastern, but I don’t regret going through with it, even though I never did go overseas again.
Kris wrote:
Thank you so much for sharing your comment! I think it’s disturbing for pastors to be told to stay away from relationships when they are so important. And if they are told to only relate to other pastors, then they are creating this division that shouldn’t be there.
Kris wrote:
That may well be so, but the flip side is that with real relationships there is also trouble and hurt and division, just a little different kind. Those in the congregation who want to exercise power use cozying up to the pastor as one route to try to do that. Those who have things in their lives which they believe to be okay but which may be forbidden by their particular group will be ‘outed’ as somebody who has beer in the refrigerator or such and the family will have to leave the church. Those who struggle with unsolvable problems like mental illness of a family member or poverty or job loss will also be outed and will never again get to just go to church and not have to face the patronizing attitude of people who now know more about them than they wanted known. Even those of the congregation for whom the relationships may be good and decent and helpful will face the ‘teacher’s pet’ attitude of other congregants. And, the congregant will see the flaws and inadequacies of the staff (and we all have issues) and will find it increasingly difficult to deal with the idea that this or that staff person is actually paid staff of the church. And we must not forget that congregants always and always and always compare the current pastor with the previous pastor and this really hurts everybody; the less known personally the less these negative comparisons can happen. Sheep bite. They bite each other, they bite the pastor, they almost even seem to bite themselves if there is nobody else to bite. And the pastors are also sheep of the fold. Please be careful for your own self.
okrapod wrote:
This is true. I think the key is to let me people slowly enough to hopefully be able to discern the good from the bad.
I err too much on the keep people out side, though, so I have been working on being more open and vulnerable. Even if it sometimes hurts.
@ okrapod:
seems to me that humility before the Lord and respect for the dignity of one another as human persons is the only real ‘fellowship’ that works in a faith community
the ‘social’ aspect of many country-club type ‘churches’ seems to create more trouble than good
@ Christiane:
That is what it seems to me also.
Christiane wrote:
I agree, and it only shows to highlight just what a miracle salvation truly is. Altar-call-based evangelism has led many, I think, to speak much too glibly of “theMiracleOfSalvation” as though it can be conjured up with a simple wave of theSinnersPrayer. Signing up to a doctrine? Any psychopath can do that (and many do). Attending regular meetings? Any fool and his dog can do that. Love of God poured out in my heart – to name just one of many absurd promises of the Gospel? With men, this is impossible.
okrapod wrote:
Yes! I had forgotten about this! I remember this from Catherine Marshall’s writings, as well. In one of her books (IIRC) she joked about how writing was the last thing she wanted to do, but the Lord kept drawing her attention to this old typewriter sitting in the corner, or something like that, until she “got it”. And I remember someone else joking about how they’d learned not to have the attitude that “that’s the last thing I’d do” (case in point, for that person, was going to Africa as a missionary) because that was what God would immediately demand of them. I think the punch line of that story was the person sighing and saying, “Okay, God, Africa” and then God (displaying a sense of humor) sent that person somewhere else as a missionary.
Was Gladys Aylward something of an anomaly, then, with her burning desire to go to China?
BTW, ran across this today on Elizabeth Elliot and there was a bit about bitterness (attributed to a talk not a book): ““Bitterness would give Satan a piece of our soul and was even known to be the cause of certain illnesses (like arthritis) and depression.”
https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/08/10/created-to-be-his-doormat-wende-benners-story/
refugee wrote:
You might say that Paul had a burning desire to advance in Judaism and that his embracing life as an apostle of Christ was a much smaller change than it might first appear.
I’m not sure there’s a formula here, but we do know that God’s will is good, pleasing and acceptable; and that doing his will and finishing his work was food itself for Jesus (and, since the servant isn’t above the Master, for us). I certainly remember the idea that the more we wanted to do it, the more sinful it must be. And I think there’s some crude and misguided logic in there!
elastigirl wrote:
One word. Fear. Fear that if they don’t go along with it, they’re going against what they’ve been told ‘the Bible teaches’.
ishy wrote:
My daughter traveled as a singer for a while in a ministry which promoted Elisabeth Elliott’s “surrendered to singleness” teaching. She always thought Elliott’s counsel in this regard was a little strange coming from a woman who was married three times!
Law Prof wrote:
These are not fruit of the Spirit! The gates of Hell prevail against such churches.
Janna L. Chan wrote:
There’s no shortage of irreverence in New Calvinist church plants in my area. Of course, circus arenas can be found in other religious venues as well. There’s more Barnum and Bailey entertainment going on in certain corners of Christendom than Holy Ghost preaching that convicts the souls of men to righteous living. I call it Christianity Lite.
Jack wrote:
I know some former Mormons who call Sunday “Second Saturday.” The growing gripe among some of my Utah friends (some of whom are not Mormon, some of whom are more relaxed Mormons and some who are former Mormons) is that it used to be you could go shopping on Sunday and the stores were empty. Now they’re becoming more crowded. Seems more people are getting into Second Saturday.
I have pOsteo an update on the open discussion thread. Thank you.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-291542
* posted
Muff Potter wrote:
And Eternal Hell (or at least Christ Spewing Thee Out of His Mouth, LUKEWARM!) can be quite a motivator.
Max wrote:
“WELCOME BACK MY FRIENDS
TO THE SHOW THAT NEVER ENDS,
WE’RE SO GLAD YOU COULD ATTEND –
COME INSIDE! COME INSIDE!”
— Emerson Lake & Palmer, “Karn Evil nine”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Salvation homework assignment. Highly effective, yah.
elastigirl wrote:
You’re so right. I belong to a small group for women at church that works well specifically it’s not tiresomely Designed For Women. What I like about it is the quiet, productive unpredictability. We do things that are needed and things that make sense to us. The only mandatory activity is private prayer, which is not exactly enforceable.
One member thought our prayer lives might benefit if we took time out to hand-craft our own rosaries. We’re calling the craft session BYOB: Bring Your Own Beads.
Max wrote:
Trivia question:
Q. What do Fanny Crosby and Phineas T. Barnum have in common?
Give up, answer below.
A. Both are buried in Mountain Grove Cemetery, Bridgeport, CT, a cemetery that Phineas T. Barnum designed.
okrapod wrote:
Your warnings and concerns are well founded. Good boundaries are crucial, and the “real relationships” between clergy and members of their churches are not the same as other friendships.
Discretion needs to be taught, so that gossip is not allowed to be used as fuel. Patient listening helps too. It’s good if the church culture encourages love and affection rather than judgment, stigma, and a long list of standards for hair, dress, attendance, and tithing.
Kris wrote:
It’s lovely that you opened the parsonage to the church last Christmas. Have you found any challenges since doing so? Are you able to have enough privacy, and to say no often enough to keep sane? Are you and your husband able to keep cliques and factions from forming around you?
@ Velour:
Maybe it’s time for the three of us to plan our own event! Chocolate sampling, hiking? Just a few thoughts.
And we must not forget that congregants always and always and always compare the current pastor with the previous pastor and this really hurts everybody; the less known personally the less these negative comparisons can happen. Sheep bite. They bite each other, they bite the pastor, they almost even seem to bite themselves if there is nobody else to bite. And the pastors are also sheep of the fold. Please be careful for your own self.
Thank you so much for your concern. People are so messy and broken and church is such a bizarre place, isn’t it? We have been blessed with going to a congregation that is about 15 minutes from our seminary, which was very close to where we lived, so we have a large support group, which is helpful.
We actually just went through our first messy situation in church due to our vulnerability and openness and were advised to maybe not be so open. :/. We are feeling our way through.
Kris wrote:
@ Kris:
So I obviously don’t know how to do this on my cell phone. My apologies.
@ Friend:
We are both extroverts and voluntarily request that people live with us so we can cook them dinner and hang out with them. We have been actually really disappointed that we don’t get invited to do more! We had a cookout this summer in our backyard and tried also to have the people that go to the evening service come over for coffee once a month. We go to swim meets and theatre productions and have lots of fun. ;). Today, we watched three kids so a couple could go to marriage counseling (and friends, Gothard & the Pearls almost wrecked them!), we had a single mom and her two daughters plan their move in to our basement (they are housesitting for us), had an awesome 17 year old help us out with chores, and had a guy from church come over because he is concerned about another guy and he wants to organize a two week prayer and fasting time and what did we think.
We have issues and have problems and it isn’t all so rosy, but even just writing about what we did on our day off filled me with such joy.
so, the clique/power/faction comment intrigues me and I am not sure how to answer. let me think on it more, perhaps?
refugee wrote:
3rd gen IFB raised here and this line of thinking has screwed me up. To this day I’m still sure the lord will take away things I love or make me do the opposite of my callings and giftings just to “make me holy and mature”. I am 29 years old and I think I’m permanently ruined.
To I fear a cage,
I am only one generation IFB, but I am a Engineering professor that does bioengineering research, so you can imagine what I went through given it was drill into me YEC thinking…as well as the how what I am doing is a “waste of time” that will all burn anyway….
Anyway, I can tell you that the IFB thinking you mention takes years to soften, but it does happen… I am 56, and at peace with allot that I was torn up inside over years ago…. but, it will always be with you to some extent…
I am working on a post for WW which try’s to summarize some of my experiences….
Finally, one aspect of IFB teaching that has stuck with me is that all men (people) are falle, and that I should not be to surprised when I encounter evil…. that actually is a significant confort…. some people think I am cynical, I like to think that I am just pragmatic, and not much surprises me any more…. for that , I thank IFB…
@ I fear a cage:
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Thank you. I hope it does get better for me.
I fear a cage wrote:
It may lessen over time, but I think you’ll always have some remnant of that.
I’m 60, and the residue is still there.
That God’s going to screw me over for His own Glory.
Many years ago, I heard a radio sermon whose refrain was “LORD, take away all that stands between me and Thee.” Including the preacher relating how the woman he loved died, strongly implied because of “LORD, take away all that stands between me and Thee.”
Some years after, I actually had a girlfriend for a short time. I was very hesitant because I thought that if I actually loved her, God would kill her to teach me a lesson. “LORD, take away all that stands between me and Thee.”
The breakup was almost 40 years ago, and I sometimes still wonder if I’d been less hesitant and more open towards her…
okrapod wrote:
JMJ over at Christian Monist had a few horror stories about that attitude. That God wanted you to abandon your actual talents & abilities and only do things you were completely incompetent in; something about “God will get the Glory”. So you had Christians doing only what they hated and were completely incompetent in.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
The leaders at my ex-church who were idiots and had sub-par educations. They constantly taught that Young Earth Creation drivel.
My grandmother, a Presbyterian, died at 102 years old. She went to a top university in the 1920’s and earned a degree in science. Ditto for her sister. Their father was a Scottish architect in the U.S. who encouraged his daughters and his only son to go to university.
My grandmother and her women friends worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers at the university. They all believed in an Old Earth.
Former CLCer wrote:
It would be fun for a wee gathering of Wartburgers to get together.
Remind me where do you live? I’m in California. Northern California. Silicon Valley.
Lea wrote:
Wow, fantastic article.
🙁
@ siteseer:
I am so glad that when I left NeoCalvinism, I tossed all of these bizarre books in the recycling container, first ripping them to shreds.
I fear a cage wrote:
I picked up this fear from IFB as well, even though I was only there a few years as a new Christian. If you think about it, the idea runs completely counter to 1Cor 12- He purposely created each of us with the particular attributes and talents to fill a certain niche. It’s like a sad joke that we’d throw away everything He has put into our creation and try to force ourselves into a different mold.
I picked up other fears at IFB, like “be careful what you pray for.” As stupid as it is, I still think twice before praying for patience because supposedly if we pray for patience, God blasts us with difficulties that test us to the extreme. There was so much fear involved. 1John 4:18 is what finally turned on the light bulb for me.
Why is it always so easy to believe what God really wants is to hurt us? If you think about it, the profile fits the god of this world so much better, he is the one who wants to lord it over his defenseless subjects and make them suffer. I wonder if this kind of thinking springs from the minds of child abuse victims who are all confused between love and abuse?
siteseer wrote:
Yessssssssssss.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Didn’t Christ talk about not burying your talents? If God gave you a talent and skill at something, I think he wants you to use it.
Also, reasoning like that makes atheism look far more sane and attractive than their type of Christianity.
ishy wrote:
I just couldn’t help thinking of mafia bosses surrounded by their lieutenants and body guards. 😉
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That is so sad. What a rotten theology that is.
@ Velour:
Maryland – not too far from D.C. However, I do have next summer off.
@ siteseer:
I remember when I first was drawn to Christianity thinking that God would probably send me as a missionary to Africa because I didn’t want to go there.
When I recently attended the worship across America movie, I did so hesitantly; however I was very touched by Max Lucado and how much he talked about God’s love and God’s father heart for us. So different than much preaching I’ve heard in the past.
I should add that, when I first started attending Covenant Life Church (which was then called the Gathering of Believers), C.J. Mahaney preached a great sermon about the fatherhood of God that really changed my life at the time. Sad how much he’s changed.
Kris wrote:
You’re very kind to share your experience, which sounds generous and even-handed to me.
I mentioned the clique/power thing because so many people on TWW have been badly hurt by churches where control is concentrated among a very few (clergy and hand-picked elders). Often the wives serve as cultural enforcers. A few churches even use gossip to discredit people who ask questions about the budget, the teachings, etc.
But in healthier churches, people sometimes want to make friends with clergy and family but can’t quite get there from here. If they see other apparent close friendships, they might wonder if favoritism exists in the congregation. They also might worry that the clergy are constantly being bombarded with dinner invitations and crying needs.
It seems to me that friendships between clergy families and the flock are somewhat risky, and that clergy families might have an easier time if they also make friends outside the congregation. If you don’t mind my asking, have you thought about this? Do you think that friendships outside your congregation might offer you some needed respite?
Some of the questions and answers are found in Jesus’ interactions with his followers and others. The epistles and pastoral letters also contain hints about the challenges of sorting out the relationships. I’m not referring to the hot-button passages, but more about the passages where the Christ-like example is established.
Blessings to you as you continue to serve and to discern your own path.
Kris wrote:
it sounds more like you are helping your family 🙂
@ okrapod:
kris wrote: “…knowing that pastors were told to ‘stay away’ from relationships, and congregants were shy from ‘making friends’ with the pastor & their family. Without real relationships, so much trouble, hurt and division happens. And the thugs gain the pulpit.”
okrapod wrote: “That may well be so, but the flip side is that with real relationships there is also trouble and hurt and division, just a little different kind…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
you varnish-stripper, you.
this is absolutely the truth, all of it. i’ve been part of 5 different churches, all different traditions or denominations. for a number of years in each one. everything you describe is true. people groups built around the concept of God — it simply can’t help but end up being crazytown.
@ Max:
“My daughter traveled as a singer for a while in a ministry which promoted Elisabeth Elliott’s “surrendered to singleness” teaching. She always thought Elliott’s counsel in this regard was a little strange coming from a woman who was married three times!”
++++++++++++++++
i think it goes with the human nature of celebrity. make someone a popular celebrity, even a kindly missionary, and their fans believe the press about them – even the the humble missionary celebrity him/herself.
with all the encouragement, the celebrity begins to believe that their opinions on a whole host of topics become sober truths as important as their celebrity selves, and they believe it is their responsibility to broadcast them for the sake of the greater good.
the fact that their message may be unfounded, illogical, silly, harmful, or bunch of nothing is lost on their fans and the celebrity him/herself.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Muff Potter wrote:
elastigirl wrote:
truth be told, no woman i know fits any stereotype. why do so many go along with it all?
Muff: One word. Fear. Fear that if they don’t go along with it, they’re going against what they’ve been told ‘the Bible teaches’.
headless: And Eternal Hell (or at least Christ Spewing Thee Out of His Mouth, LUKEWARM!) can be quite a motivator.
++++++++++++++++
social drives like belonging to a group is a quite a motivator.
but at what cost?
see, i knew my natural-born misfit, outsider wiring would pay off some day!
elastigirl wrote:
I’m a firm believer that church is optional, but it should be possible to have a healthy church. Do you think such a thing has ever existed? I always enjoy your insights and would appreciate your thoughts about this.
@ Friend:
“Discretion needs to be taught, so that gossip is not allowed to be used as fuel. Patient listening helps too. It’s good if the church culture encourages love and affection rather than judgment, stigma, and a long list of standards for hair, dress, attendance, and tithing.”
+++++++++++++++++
i think church culture is goofy and complex enough to mess up even these good-sounding things. even rules against rule-making become new-&-improved rule-making.
and nothing like being the object of mandated love and affection.
(although, having said all this, i have a feeling you and your cohorts are doing things right and well. i suspect you are anomalies, though)
my basis for my conclusions: after removing myself from church culture, detoxing for a while, and finding friends extra ecclesia, the freedom and natural easiness of it all has been the happiest discovery. people don’t take themselves and each other so seriously. people’s natural impulses for kindness & intuition are not run through any imposed grid, other than the people’s own conscience.
@ Friend:
“I’m a firm believer that church is optional, but it should be possible to have a healthy church. Do you think such a thing has ever existed?”
++++++++
thank you for the comment, Friend.
healthy church…. the pastor of my 2nd-to-last-most-recent church talked often about ‘healthy church’, and ‘so you can get healthy’. Ha, it was every bit as dysfunctional crazytown as the 3rd-to-last-most-recent church.
my most recent church came the closest to what i would call ‘healthy’. but so much weirdness….
–you take the time to get cleaned up and look your best and you go to church and men are terrified to make eye contact with you. your fellow women respond weirdly, too. it’s just easier being as underdone as possible (one’s least flattering clothes, hair, make-up, accessories).
–gender role bul1sh|t… show any modicum of assertiveness with men and it’s as though you punched them. they have this stunned look, as if to say “ouch….what’d you do that for?!”
–sense of humor… if it’s tinged with sarcasm, again this stunned look, followed by a kind of sad look that they cover up, like i’ve done something quite terrible. so terrible that they have to make an extra effort to politely ignore it to protect me from the outrageous response it deserved. like i had just made a loud racist comment, or something. i think they are checking off the “be gracious” box, and patting themselves on the back for how ‘christlike’ they are being. ridiculous.
….i have to stop here — i’m getting more agitated by the second. this last paragraph sums up so much of the crazy weirdness in church — all the rules, silly rules, to protect everyone from themselves and each other, and they pat themselves on the back for following them because the feel ‘christlike’. but the net result? an environment of paranoia, co-dependence, insecurity, anxiety.
@ Friend:
healthy church
++++++++++
a final thought: the ironic thing is that “healthy church” is how un-church-like a church can be. it is the degree to which church goers resemble good people who don’t go to church at all.
the concept of God prevents this from really happening, though. the concept of God is all about fear and rules.
God, Jesus, Holy Spirit are not about fear and rules.
It’s people who do this.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
totally sucks, headless. what a hyperspiritual total moron that radio person was. so sorry for this stupid religion of ours. blight on the tree of life. fly in the ointment. party pooper to all joy and happiness. magnet of the moronic. promoter of personality disorders. ok, this is getting fun…
@ elastigirl:
Elastigirl, I believe you have accurately described the aura that emanates from the beast called “celebrity.”
elastigirl wrote:
that ‘natural-born misfit, outsider wiring’ is called discernment and the more of it you have, the less you want to drink the kool-aide
elastigirl wrote:
Hear-hear. Sigh-sigh. Thanks much.
elastigirl wrote:
Kris wrote:
Had to come back to address these two thoughts. The most painful thing that has happened to me at church concerned the slow death of a deeply loved member of a clergy family. The family simply could not accept the overwhelming crush of loving concern coming from the congregation. While many in the congregation understood the family’s need for privacy, many others felt silenced and excluded, and a few pounded on their door insisting on visiting with casseroles. It was an absolutely horrible time for all. The emotional strain took a toll on the whole congregation. My own volunteer efforts felt so futile amidst the need that I actually burned out and left church for awhile. Since returning, I have developed better skills at protecting myself.
@ Kris:
Hi, Kris — you sound like totally awesome people! natural and sincere, kind and open.
I hope you can stay true to yourselves amidst the institution’s many conflicting expectations.
@ Friend:
Hi, Friend. That sounds very hard, indeed. I am familiar with this kind of scenario to some degree. I think church puts so much value (& pressure) on togetherness, on relationships, on relationships done on a very grand scale in quantity and quality — there is simply no place or room for introverts. for people who covet and need peace, quiet, and privacy.
I bet in any given church that half of its members are frustrated introverts. and because of the God-card that is played (making happy, joyful, outgoing, friendly, outreach-y-ness as prerequisites for pleasing God) the living of their lives feels like ill-fitting shoes (for the introvert half of the church).
my agnostic, non-religious relatives have always observed my family & think all the crazy togetherness of going to church is utterly bonkers. they can’t believe people live like this. it sounds terrible to them. suffocating.
it is truly very sweet and so kind that people want to help, want to make a difference in the lives of others. sometimes it’s just too much, though. sometimes solitude, or near solitude, is the life-giving thing to get a person through.
@ elastigirl:
Yes, there were some unrealistic thoughts about togetherness, and those caused problems. The pain ran so deep, though. Since people couldn’t help the dying person, they would react very strongly to seemingly unrelated things. Fortunately the place gradually recovered, and I’m grateful. However, I’m a far more assertive member now, partly for my sanity but mainly because I want the place to be responsive to complaints and contrary viewpoints. Worship time makes up for some of the less perfect things. And I have just enough friends.
elastigirl wrote:
It sounds like a very bland diet, no spices allowed, pretty humdrum.
“The pain ran so deep, though. Since people couldn’t help the dying person, ”
++++++++++
i understand this one. when relationships have been tight for so long, and then ravaging illness comes along, all their energy goes into surviving the moment. the presence of others is too taxing. it’s emotionally complicated for all, including the ill person (who is aware of more than others would guess). it’s devastating for everyone.
@ Bill M:
it was actually a fun place. fun people, upbeat energy, lots of sincerity. i wouldn’t call it bland at all. but a fare amount of weirdness, too (including intolerant to sarcasm). just too much religiosity, i guess you could say.
elastigirl wrote:
A friend was dying of cancer. So people got together and had a Living Memorial. She got to see how important she was in all of their lives, a real bona fide church service (like a memorial service or a funeral service) and people got to process their love and grief. And they got to break bread together and have a final meal together. Maybe that’s the way to go.
@ elastigirl:
Re “fun place” … “religiosity” I think we’ve all realized here that there are no reliable formulas for creating or identifying or maintaining a healthy church. But I do think that strictness is overrated. Churches that don’t collectively stare at your hair or tut-tut your wacky humor are better places.
@ Friend:
“I think we’ve all realized here that there are no reliable formulas for creating or identifying or maintaining a healthy church. But I do think that strictness is overrated.”
+++++++++++++
agreed. perhaps what is healthy to one person is any number of things but healthy to another person.
strictness — it comes down to fear, doesn’t it? fear of what might happen. fear of something going wrong. fear of something less than ideal, less than awesome, less than great, less than perfect. fear of anything less than God’s perfect will. fear of losing standing with one’s christian peers. the poor kids who have parents like this.
reminds me of a line from Finding Nemo:
Marlin: I promised I’d never let anything happen to him.
Dory: Hmm. That’s a funny thing to promise.
Marlin: What?
Dory: Well, you can’t never let anything happen to him. Then nothing would ever happen to him. Not much fun for little Harpo.
@ Friend:
thanks for the interaction today, Friend. it’s been enjoyable.
@ Velour:
sounds very good. yes, a living memorial. if the ill person can get through it.
elastigirl wrote:
Indeed. Only if they can get through it.
@ elastigirl:
🙂
Max wrote:
“”When I was little I prayed for a bike and didn’t get it. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and asked for forgiveness.” -Steven Wright
elastigirl wrote:
And Five Fast Praise-the-LOOORDs won’t make the devastation magically and instantly go away. Memorizing a dozen chapter-and-verses of SCRIPTURE and rewordgitating them on command won’t turn that situation into free ice cream for everyone. Like a lot of Uber-Spiritual Uber-Christians (who have never had anything bad personally happen to them) claim. And damn you to Eternal Hell when THEIR pious platitudes don’t immediately and instantly fix YOUR devastation.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Thanks, HUG. It was a quieter church than that. However, when I said, in private, to carefully chosen people, that the official letter telling us not to discuss the illness was causing pain to members, I was criticized and accused of trying to barge in on the family. I had absolutely no plan to disturb them. All I wanted to do was lift the gag order so that members could share their sorrow among themselves.
The topic was off limits for two solid years. We were told in writing that we should address any questions to two specific people. Unfortunately they never knew anything.
This is why I’m so assertive now. I won’t let clergy and volunteer leaders try to think and feel in my stead.
@ Friend:
you were being very reasonable. i’m sorry the response was so unreasonable. In such a situation i think it’s right to honor all the relationships by acknowledging their love and concern and keeping them informed. i think you were very right to communicate what you did. Good for you for all your assertiveness and maintaining ownership of your own thoughts, thinking processes, and feelings!
Friend wrote:
You were right to criticize. I don’t get these churches that want to direct what people can talk about amongst themselves! That’s so bizarre. As long as you weren’t bothering the family, I don’t know why they would care. (Maybe it if it was something really sensitive like HIV, I could see a church thinking it was ‘gossip’ not that I would agree)
Lea wrote:
It was hard for me to write about this on TWW, but now I’m glad I did. The support here means so much. I also understand the letter differently. It was intended to protect a suffering family, but instead it came across as a form of church discipline that I had never heard of. A congregation under stress might make mistakes, however, it should not lurch toward disciplining the entire group–especially when no one has done anything wrong. This exchange has also given me a new idea for preventing collective discipline. I’m going to meet individually with a couple of clergy members and lay volunteers to talk about the problems that disciplinary letters are causing in churches around the country.