To quote someone I know, "I like to think about church-to a point." I like questions like "What do I want a church I plant to look like?" and "How do I make people feel part of it?" I can sit all day and draw pictures in my head of what church should look like.
I can read things like this: "On the Day of Pentecost the Jerusalem congregation grew to more than 3,000 multicultural, multilingual Jews (Acts 2:41). Several thousand more were added in the days that followed (Acts 4:4, 5:14, 6:7). The church was multicultural and multilingual from the first moment of its existence. [United by Faith by Curtiss Paul DeYoung, Michael O. Emerson, George Yancey, and Karen Chai Kim]." I get excited by that.
I can read all our blogs since July and be overwhelmed (in a smiling, face hurting way) by how some of the ideas evolved through discussion. I think honest, open, sometimes even just stream-of-conciousness writing has really fleshed out some ideas, and I think that needs to be translated from a small group environment to a church-wide one. Not necessarily the back-and-forth aspects of the discussion, but the openness and honesty about church vision, mission, values, events; basically everything.
Let me be honest for a second. When I first joined Here Today in 1999, I was very suspicious of Christians because sometimes I didn't feel like I was involved in their circle because I felt I was being judged. I wasn't being judged, which I know now, but that suspiciousness developed because people weren't always forthcoming with what was going on. It would be like, "Hey we're going to play a show at a church." Then, we'd arrive at a church and have to participate in church-stuff before we played. I'd be there like, "What the heck?" It's not even that I minded the church stuff, and ultimately, it changed my life more than playing bass ever did, but if everyone had been forthcoming with me, I wouldn't have felt like I'd been tricked into going to church. I could have just gone and soaked it in without bitterness.
Especially if a church is going to unite people in their faith, I think a "cards on the table" approach is wise. Again, let me be honest; a lot of people don't naturally trust the intentions of people of other races. I was thinking about this a lot a couple days ago, and I know that my current openness to diversity is only through a years-long effort to be open and is not something that was necessarily passed down from my parents. Not that they are racist; they are status-quoists, and that's not good enough for me.
If nothing is hidden from people, and if the mission, vision and values are openly and often shared, then there will be no mystery. I have seen how suspisciousness can develop even where you feel it never could and cause division in the body. The more open and the more people know what is going on, I feel the less would have to be suspicious about. Obviously, in our world, division is going to find a way to crop up, but I feel like this would be one way to hellp protect against Satan and his plots to divide and devour.
Look at our country and how suspisciousness has arisen because nobody feels politicians are forthcoming and trustworthy. Transparency, love, and grace could help the church avoid becoming like the government and help church leaders avoid being seen as politicians.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I appreciate the idea of trying to be open and honest with people. I know I can also feel frustrated when I feel people are, "holding their cards close," as if they have some secret plan to manipulate me. So, you're saying, when it comes to vision stuff- try not to hold you cards close, but lay it out there as much as possible. I appreciate the idea that ambiguity can breed suspiciousness. I read in a book once that you can never communicate too much. (Top 10 Mistakes Leaders Make- greatly recommend!) It is better to feel like you've over communicated than find out you've not communicated. I agree that that can breed suspiciousness.
And Suspiciousness can lead to division.
And division can lead to hate.
And hate can lead to the dark side.
And we don't want that now do we?
As for how these thoughts lead to questions of race.
It is true that sometimes an issue of race can feel like a "pink elephant" in the room that is there but no one wants to bring it up.
I was in a small group once this past year and a person said something and suddenly another person got up and walked out of the room. It was awkward for everyone. I forget if I said something about it, but I should have. It was there and everyone felt the awkwardness.
But, when issues of race are very sensitive. So, the only problem can become- if you challenge people to "lay it on the table"- you can have people who verbally smack people upside the head with broad sweeping strokes just to be hurtful, in the name of "being honest."
I've experienced this situation numerous times this past year. I was leading an event and a couple didn't like how I did it. So, I asked to speak to them. Eventually they sent an e-mail that clearly stated how bad of a job I did and numerous things they didn't like about it. But, how they wanted to drop it and move on and that I should to. There was no room for discussion or for them to hear my point of view. The problem is that some people are like that. "Honest Discussion" to them means to throw-up on someone else, feel better, and walk away.
I'm reading a book called, "Gracism" where it talks about giving special honor and favor to those groups of people that do not naturally receive it. It's an interesting concept.
But, anyhoo, back to your point. I would definitely agree that if there is anything done in the area of race, one needs to be extra careful about being upfront. I would agree that there is a lot of mistrust- it is warranted by those minorities oppressed by the majority!
So, due to mistrust, leaders need to move forward like a person being asked to step out of their car by a cop. Move very slowly, with their hands held high- showing they are unarmed. And making no sudden moves.
I totally agree. I think it is important to distinguish between leadership laying the vision of the church and the status of the church out on the table so there are no hidden cards and individuals (even the leaders) laying the cards on the table just to get things off their chest. The latter is not necessarily in line with a biblical model of conflict resolution that involves honesty and openness but also humility and grace.
"Gracism" is a cool title if nothing else.
Post a Comment