Understandably, my last post has made the rounds. In fact, I have had more response on that post about eight times over than anything else I have posted. Not only has it moved through members of First UMC, but many other voices have added in that they have seen this problem at their own church, too, specifically where a small group tries to assert personal preference as doctrine. Please continue to share this with members of our church and anyone else.
I do want to make a couple of additional notes, regarding the last post. If you have not read it yet, I might suggest starting there.
Firstly, to anyone attending First UMC that did not know the severity of this issue or that there was a problem at all, I urge you not to feel too guilty about it. Again, this whole situation (and all incidents thereof) was allowed to fester because this is both a hard topic to talk about and a taboo topic, meaning that we all feel that it shouldn't be talked about. However, in order to fix this problem, we must first be aware of it--that was a large part of the intention, identifying the problem and the modality of that problem.
Secondly, if I wanted to instigate a witch hunt, I would have named some names. There are many, many angry people in the church right now. It's not unchristian to be angry; it's a natural response. There are things that should make us angry in this world: hunger, poverty, and injustice to name a few. What we do with that anger, however, how we choose to use that will be a defining moment for our church. We could easily use it to tear ourselves apart--either through infighting or sitting back and uselessly dolling out the blame from a distance. Or we could take culpability for ourselves and work to make change. Take this as an opportunity to become more involved in your church by volunteering--VBS could always use volunteers, greeters and communion servers are needed, the casserole ministry can use casseroles, and many, many other opportunities. You can become as involved as you want to be every week, once in a while, etc. Other than volunteering, you can join a committee and contribute to some of the ruling decisions at the church. (For the record, I am following my own advice and have recently joined a committee.) Regardless of how you choose to be involved, you are supporting the church and the work that it does, contributing to the health of our community. In our membership ceremony, we promise to support the church through our prayers, our presence, our gifts, and our service: what does this mean to you and where can you improve personally?
In other words, yes, get angry! But then steer that anger into something positive instead of something destructive, and if you're not sure how or where, ask. Again, deciding who deserves how much blame isn't productive. Instead, choose how you personally are going to make changes, not what someone else should do. You will certainly find much more peace in the situation.
So here's where we can combine these two thoughts together. We need to talk about the problem and in doing so we need to change the conversation to this new direction. I don't suggest confronting everyone in the church, but if the conversation happens organically, don't be afraid to have it. There's a lot to unpack (ignoring temporarily our own natural curiosity about the details) and we are going to go through a grieving process, loss of the image we used to have of the church, if nothing else. We can support each other through this. The trickiest part will be drawing the line between discussion and gossip and diverting the conversation away from the gossip side when necessary. What I'm proposing is not to stop the conversation if it needs to happen, but to change how it ends. Instead of <<"Well, this sucks." "Yeah, it does.">> turn it instead to <<"So, how're we going to fix it?">>. This is a subtle change, but it colors the experience differently.
And the talking will get easier. With any luck, so will the ideas for possible solutions. I won't lie, though, in that things are likely to get messier before they get better. I happen to think that this is worth fighting for.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Sunday, May 1, 2016
Open Letter to Our Church
I've been debating for a while on how to word this and if I should even then share it and how far to disseminate it. I've been taught for a long time not air this kind of dirty laundry. As for as controversial topics go, religion and politics are at the top, and, well, I want to talk about church politics.
Just recently, I had been talking with a friend about church as a general concept. I agreed with the idea that a building isn't essential to worship, but argued that it helped to have support and people to hold you accountable, help you grow. In the end, we could both agree that the teachings in Christianity, taken purely, were solid. The problem happens when a group of people start taking it in their own directions. I've known many, many individuals hurt by groups claiming to speak for the church where it drove them away and left a bitter taste in their mouths.
I'm another.
Perhaps I have not been wronged to the depth of others, but I certainly feel betrayed and hurt by a small group claiming to be acting as the church, Christians who are supposed to be "good people." I am so heart-sore and frustrated. I have seriously considered leaving and truly am reconsidering things I had once believed about my faith.
For those unaware, the decision has been made that our current minister at First United Methodist Church in Normal, IL, Dr. Don Jackson, will be moved. That, in and of itself, is not unprecedented in the Methodist Church--we move pastors all the time to bring in fresh voices and otherwise ensure that it would never become "Pastor John Doe's Church" instead of God's Church. The timing and politics of this move, however, is where things got nasty.
I'll say this bluntly: there are people patting themselves on the back for seeing Don removed. And it was done rather underhandedly.
As an example, there was a petition sent up to the bishop that had twenty-some-odd signatures on it. I was never told about this petition when it was being signed, as were many others conveniently skipped. Only a select group was involved. This petition was not an accurate representation of the opinions of the members of First United Methodist Church in Normal. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the majority of the church is either disappointed or upset that Don is being moved.
Now as sad as I am about Don moving, I want to be very clear that I while I will miss Don and Cynthia very much, I am much more upset with the actions of certain members of the church. Soon, we will have a new set of ministers for our church, but the underlying problems are still there; poison is already in our church body.
Some of this problem, in this particular case is racism and bigotry, I'm sad to say. There have been a group saying they did not want Don visiting them in their homes or in the hospital because they didn't want a black man there. Some have been less blatant about personal prejudices. God calls us to be inclusive of all peoples, regardless of race, gender, class, or whatever other barrier we might wish to construct, even in our own membership ceremony (page 34 of the UMH, specifically mentioning race, if anyone needs to look). It is very unchristian to be a bigot.
This problem is then combined at least in part with another huge problem: egoism, this idea that this is "my church" and worship and all other functions, then, will happen "my way."
I grew up with church politics, my father serving as a pastor for this conference all my life--I've seen very clearly what it can do to the pastor's family, and I have seen it happen for the stupidest reasons. Once, my father called himself "an old fart" in the children's sermon. Whether you agree or disagree that this is something that should not be said in church, I hope that we can all agree that this is not something that should be sent straight to the District Superintendent. They did not take the mature response and talk to him privately about their concerns. In another instance, a parishioner tore down VBS decorations because she did not want them in "her sanctuary," even though there was a team set to take them down later. These are rather innocent examples, but I can assure you there are worse ones.
It starts small, with a few persons complaining about how X doesn't belong in "my sanctuary." The list starts branching out, until we could even call it micromanaging. Thus starts the demands and ultimatums to make God's church look more like "my church." This has included withholding tithes, threats, defamation of character and other lies, and many, many different attempts at coercion. John Wesley's "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" becomes, "No, really, my way is what we're going to do."
Any time someone says "X isn't going to happen in MY church," they reveal that somewhere along the way they have definitely missed the point. It is NOT "their church." It's not "my church" either. It always was and always should be GOD'S church.
The church should not bow to any one person's preferences. The church is not a building, is not made of these ceremonies, doesn't have a song-style preference, and all-around does not have these rules. Over time, we have made this institution, but it is NOT the church. Our mission statement has never been to have our sanctuary look just so or sing only out of one hymnal. If these details become so important, then your religion is serving yourself and not what you came to worship. "My church" puts the wrong person on the cross. We will not be judged by how pleasant our service is but by what changes we have made in people's lives.
So to this particular group of people, either because of bigotry, egoism, or most likely some mix, the pastor becomes a lightning rod for all of that discontent. Decisions like worship order, the new screen, and other changes are made by committees in the church that have weighed the options and benefits to make this choice. Take that new screen, for example. It allows us more modern media, to include new examples for sermons, to show how the youth work-trip went through their smiling and muddy faces, to make it easier for new persons to find music when they are unfamiliar with our hymnal system, to help visual learners read important points and better remember important parts, and a myriad of other things. In the end, the screen is about inclusiveness. But it covers the cross temporarily.
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone still disagreed with this decision. We have biblical guides for resolving conflict. We have Methodist guides for the working of our church in the Book of Discipline. Neither one will suggest gossip or going straight to the DS or the Bishop. It goes first to the person responsible, which could be a committee or a single person, for a conversation, not a list of demands. When something concerns us, do we ask questions? Communication is a two way street, which means that the burden of initiating a conversation must sometimes come from us, too. And I mean real, adult conversations.
That brings me to the next point, how could this happen? Regardless of the motive, why this kind of problem persists and festers within our church is because we don't talk about it. All of those same misgivings for why I feel I shouldn't be airing this in a public way, that social faux pax, that secrecy is what allowed this situation to gain traction. For the majority of us, we might have felt something was happening but didn't know enough to voice these concerns or felt it perhaps wasn't our place. Staff and committee members knew too much but couldn't mobilize that information. For anyone who was completely unaware, you were surrounded by all of the things that make this church wonderful.
I can tell you how this happens. It starts with small, snide comments. "Don't you think that Don should be doing X?" "Why would they choose that song?" "Oh, no one ever shows up to the eleven o'clock anyway." Sometimes these are innocent, but sometimes they instead reveal some deeper feelings. Think again about that rule, that one does not talk about the problems in the church--if this person is making those kinds of comments frequently, they have reached a point where that grievance is strong enough in their minds to overcome that unwritten rule.
One of two things can happen, then: the person in question could be subconsciously planting seeds of discontent or they could find their people who think the same way.
This negativity grows, then, instead of being addressed. Some stopped attending but still tried to dictate how the show should run. When I have heard these kinds of remarks, I've brushed them off or tried to explain them away. I've been guilty of being too nice instead of sorting out the underlying problem. The best response I've used a couple times now was to suggest we stop worrying and let God work. I think I might need to continue that direction but counteract the negativity more directly--neutral is not going to cut it anymore. I'm leaning most toward Socratic questions, to perhaps break down where this impression is coming from and why we should maybe not take it at face value.
In our model, negativity continues to grow. It grows most in the places where these like-minded persons have now found each other and roll around these feelings--be it egoism, self-righteousness, or a number of other causes--until it reaches a boiling point. I do not pretend to understand all of rationale behind why the persons involved in this matter have acted as they have, but I will insist that it was not handled maturely.
And here's the sticking point--new people looking for a church are looking to go to God's church, no one that has been twisted into someone's "my church." What kind of impression might these people have had, if they overheard any side comments? And how many people have already turned away?
The rest of us aren't stupid. This behavior is what will destroy this congregation. Members and staff have left or are going to leave. That's the irony of the situation: in the drive to save "my church," so that it is preserved in just such a way, it will be destroyed. It will die. A being that does not grow dies. Strangling new life in the church continues no legacies. What especially frustrates me is how we recently celebrated the 150 year heritage of a church created to meet the needs of the community, now watching as it serves itself into irrelevancy.
By breaking this code of secrecy, I'm sure there is more than one person thinking that perhaps I am doing more harm than good. However, messes tend to get messier as they are ultimately cleaned up, and this is a bone that needs to be re-broken before it can be set again properly. We are already hurting and we need to start healing. That is bigger than Don and bigger than me.
But I still have so much hope. There are so many good people in this church, people who embody what it means to be a good Christian, imperfect but constantly striving forward in a beautiful tension. There is a special place in my heart for so many of you, especially the amazing youth of our church that are asking questions people four times their age have not found words for; youth of First United Methodist Church, I love you more than you know. From the beginning of my time in this church, I have been inspired, I have been welcomed, I have been supported, I have been prayed through some of the hardest times in my life.
I have been loved. That is why it pains me to see the church this way.
And yet I forgive you. As angry and hurt as I am, I want to believe that there are some good intentions that were lost somewhere along the way. I want us to be better.
So now what? Where do we go from here?
I cannot pretend anymore that everything is okay. Nothing gets solved if we force ourselves to believe there's no problem. This is where we must begin again.
We need to have frank conversations. We need to speak out against that negativity--not in the sense that we cannot have negative feelings, but that we work through them instead of storing them away. We need to reclaim our voice when others are not speaking accurately for us. We need to be God's church above all else and relinquish our own designs.
To those that have already decided to leave, I understand--the toxicity is absolutely choking, and I have had the same thoughts myself. To those on a fence, I implore you to be bold and stick it out a little bit longer. For those of you who feel that your voice has not been heard or has been trampled upon, I urge you to speak. Volunteer. Become part of a committee and work for change on the inside. Refuse to let this church die at the hands of those who insist on chipping it into the form of something it's not supposed to be. Support our new pastors coming in to the church and be open to their leadership. Reject the idea that nothing can be done to fix this. Let God work in this church again and breathe into it new and vibrant life. And choose to love, above all things.
Please pass this on to our fellow church members.
Just recently, I had been talking with a friend about church as a general concept. I agreed with the idea that a building isn't essential to worship, but argued that it helped to have support and people to hold you accountable, help you grow. In the end, we could both agree that the teachings in Christianity, taken purely, were solid. The problem happens when a group of people start taking it in their own directions. I've known many, many individuals hurt by groups claiming to speak for the church where it drove them away and left a bitter taste in their mouths.
I'm another.
Perhaps I have not been wronged to the depth of others, but I certainly feel betrayed and hurt by a small group claiming to be acting as the church, Christians who are supposed to be "good people." I am so heart-sore and frustrated. I have seriously considered leaving and truly am reconsidering things I had once believed about my faith.
For those unaware, the decision has been made that our current minister at First United Methodist Church in Normal, IL, Dr. Don Jackson, will be moved. That, in and of itself, is not unprecedented in the Methodist Church--we move pastors all the time to bring in fresh voices and otherwise ensure that it would never become "Pastor John Doe's Church" instead of God's Church. The timing and politics of this move, however, is where things got nasty.
I'll say this bluntly: there are people patting themselves on the back for seeing Don removed. And it was done rather underhandedly.
As an example, there was a petition sent up to the bishop that had twenty-some-odd signatures on it. I was never told about this petition when it was being signed, as were many others conveniently skipped. Only a select group was involved. This petition was not an accurate representation of the opinions of the members of First United Methodist Church in Normal. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the majority of the church is either disappointed or upset that Don is being moved.
Now as sad as I am about Don moving, I want to be very clear that I while I will miss Don and Cynthia very much, I am much more upset with the actions of certain members of the church. Soon, we will have a new set of ministers for our church, but the underlying problems are still there; poison is already in our church body.
Some of this problem, in this particular case is racism and bigotry, I'm sad to say. There have been a group saying they did not want Don visiting them in their homes or in the hospital because they didn't want a black man there. Some have been less blatant about personal prejudices. God calls us to be inclusive of all peoples, regardless of race, gender, class, or whatever other barrier we might wish to construct, even in our own membership ceremony (page 34 of the UMH, specifically mentioning race, if anyone needs to look). It is very unchristian to be a bigot.
This problem is then combined at least in part with another huge problem: egoism, this idea that this is "my church" and worship and all other functions, then, will happen "my way."
I grew up with church politics, my father serving as a pastor for this conference all my life--I've seen very clearly what it can do to the pastor's family, and I have seen it happen for the stupidest reasons. Once, my father called himself "an old fart" in the children's sermon. Whether you agree or disagree that this is something that should not be said in church, I hope that we can all agree that this is not something that should be sent straight to the District Superintendent. They did not take the mature response and talk to him privately about their concerns. In another instance, a parishioner tore down VBS decorations because she did not want them in "her sanctuary," even though there was a team set to take them down later. These are rather innocent examples, but I can assure you there are worse ones.
It starts small, with a few persons complaining about how X doesn't belong in "my sanctuary." The list starts branching out, until we could even call it micromanaging. Thus starts the demands and ultimatums to make God's church look more like "my church." This has included withholding tithes, threats, defamation of character and other lies, and many, many different attempts at coercion. John Wesley's "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity" becomes, "No, really, my way is what we're going to do."
Any time someone says "X isn't going to happen in MY church," they reveal that somewhere along the way they have definitely missed the point. It is NOT "their church." It's not "my church" either. It always was and always should be GOD'S church.
The church should not bow to any one person's preferences. The church is not a building, is not made of these ceremonies, doesn't have a song-style preference, and all-around does not have these rules. Over time, we have made this institution, but it is NOT the church. Our mission statement has never been to have our sanctuary look just so or sing only out of one hymnal. If these details become so important, then your religion is serving yourself and not what you came to worship. "My church" puts the wrong person on the cross. We will not be judged by how pleasant our service is but by what changes we have made in people's lives.
So to this particular group of people, either because of bigotry, egoism, or most likely some mix, the pastor becomes a lightning rod for all of that discontent. Decisions like worship order, the new screen, and other changes are made by committees in the church that have weighed the options and benefits to make this choice. Take that new screen, for example. It allows us more modern media, to include new examples for sermons, to show how the youth work-trip went through their smiling and muddy faces, to make it easier for new persons to find music when they are unfamiliar with our hymnal system, to help visual learners read important points and better remember important parts, and a myriad of other things. In the end, the screen is about inclusiveness. But it covers the cross temporarily.
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone still disagreed with this decision. We have biblical guides for resolving conflict. We have Methodist guides for the working of our church in the Book of Discipline. Neither one will suggest gossip or going straight to the DS or the Bishop. It goes first to the person responsible, which could be a committee or a single person, for a conversation, not a list of demands. When something concerns us, do we ask questions? Communication is a two way street, which means that the burden of initiating a conversation must sometimes come from us, too. And I mean real, adult conversations.
That brings me to the next point, how could this happen? Regardless of the motive, why this kind of problem persists and festers within our church is because we don't talk about it. All of those same misgivings for why I feel I shouldn't be airing this in a public way, that social faux pax, that secrecy is what allowed this situation to gain traction. For the majority of us, we might have felt something was happening but didn't know enough to voice these concerns or felt it perhaps wasn't our place. Staff and committee members knew too much but couldn't mobilize that information. For anyone who was completely unaware, you were surrounded by all of the things that make this church wonderful.
I can tell you how this happens. It starts with small, snide comments. "Don't you think that Don should be doing X?" "Why would they choose that song?" "Oh, no one ever shows up to the eleven o'clock anyway." Sometimes these are innocent, but sometimes they instead reveal some deeper feelings. Think again about that rule, that one does not talk about the problems in the church--if this person is making those kinds of comments frequently, they have reached a point where that grievance is strong enough in their minds to overcome that unwritten rule.
One of two things can happen, then: the person in question could be subconsciously planting seeds of discontent or they could find their people who think the same way.
This negativity grows, then, instead of being addressed. Some stopped attending but still tried to dictate how the show should run. When I have heard these kinds of remarks, I've brushed them off or tried to explain them away. I've been guilty of being too nice instead of sorting out the underlying problem. The best response I've used a couple times now was to suggest we stop worrying and let God work. I think I might need to continue that direction but counteract the negativity more directly--neutral is not going to cut it anymore. I'm leaning most toward Socratic questions, to perhaps break down where this impression is coming from and why we should maybe not take it at face value.
In our model, negativity continues to grow. It grows most in the places where these like-minded persons have now found each other and roll around these feelings--be it egoism, self-righteousness, or a number of other causes--until it reaches a boiling point. I do not pretend to understand all of rationale behind why the persons involved in this matter have acted as they have, but I will insist that it was not handled maturely.
And here's the sticking point--new people looking for a church are looking to go to God's church, no one that has been twisted into someone's "my church." What kind of impression might these people have had, if they overheard any side comments? And how many people have already turned away?
The rest of us aren't stupid. This behavior is what will destroy this congregation. Members and staff have left or are going to leave. That's the irony of the situation: in the drive to save "my church," so that it is preserved in just such a way, it will be destroyed. It will die. A being that does not grow dies. Strangling new life in the church continues no legacies. What especially frustrates me is how we recently celebrated the 150 year heritage of a church created to meet the needs of the community, now watching as it serves itself into irrelevancy.
By breaking this code of secrecy, I'm sure there is more than one person thinking that perhaps I am doing more harm than good. However, messes tend to get messier as they are ultimately cleaned up, and this is a bone that needs to be re-broken before it can be set again properly. We are already hurting and we need to start healing. That is bigger than Don and bigger than me.
But I still have so much hope. There are so many good people in this church, people who embody what it means to be a good Christian, imperfect but constantly striving forward in a beautiful tension. There is a special place in my heart for so many of you, especially the amazing youth of our church that are asking questions people four times their age have not found words for; youth of First United Methodist Church, I love you more than you know. From the beginning of my time in this church, I have been inspired, I have been welcomed, I have been supported, I have been prayed through some of the hardest times in my life.
I have been loved. That is why it pains me to see the church this way.
And yet I forgive you. As angry and hurt as I am, I want to believe that there are some good intentions that were lost somewhere along the way. I want us to be better.
So now what? Where do we go from here?
I cannot pretend anymore that everything is okay. Nothing gets solved if we force ourselves to believe there's no problem. This is where we must begin again.
We need to have frank conversations. We need to speak out against that negativity--not in the sense that we cannot have negative feelings, but that we work through them instead of storing them away. We need to reclaim our voice when others are not speaking accurately for us. We need to be God's church above all else and relinquish our own designs.
To those that have already decided to leave, I understand--the toxicity is absolutely choking, and I have had the same thoughts myself. To those on a fence, I implore you to be bold and stick it out a little bit longer. For those of you who feel that your voice has not been heard or has been trampled upon, I urge you to speak. Volunteer. Become part of a committee and work for change on the inside. Refuse to let this church die at the hands of those who insist on chipping it into the form of something it's not supposed to be. Support our new pastors coming in to the church and be open to their leadership. Reject the idea that nothing can be done to fix this. Let God work in this church again and breathe into it new and vibrant life. And choose to love, above all things.
Please pass this on to our fellow church members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)