Posts Tagged ‘Christlike behaviour in conflict’
On another note
Posted on: January 31, 2016
- In: Christian relationships | Christianity | church life | faith | freedom | worship
- Leave a Comment
Long, long ago at a college far, far away I got a degree in early childhood education. The idea of learning modalities was still fairly new – the concept of there being different ways that we learn. Most of us by now are quite familiar with the basic ones: auditory, visual, and kinesthetic. For centuries, teaching meant assigning rote memorization. Kids who could memorize well were smart; kids who couldn’t were dunces. That was simply how teaching – and learning – was done. The concept that people learn in different ways, and that each of those ways is perfectly valid, brought about a sea-change in the teaching profession; yes, the concept meant that ALL kids now had a greater chance of getting to learn, but it also meant that teachers had to learn how to TEACH differently, too. It takes a lot more effort to teach every lesson in multiple ways – especially in ways that the teacher herself may not relate to.
Something similar to this concept, applied to relationships, was introduced some years ago in a book by Gary Chapman called The Five Love Languages. The idea is that each person both perceives and expresses love in one of five “languages”. One is giving gifts, one is doing acts of service, one is speaking words of praise, one is spending time, and … I forget the other. (Must not be my language!) It is not the intention of expressing love that is most critical, but whether or not the object of that love actually perceives it as such. If your language is spending time, but someone instead gives you lots of gifts, you will not feel loved. Since we all tend to express love in the way we would most like to receive it, it takes effort to learn to recognize and appreciate love being expressed in ways other than our own language. The highest expression of love is to learn to speak another’s language, foreign to us as it may be.
All of which leads me to: worship music, of course.
A few months ago, our Sunday morning service was enlivened by the participation of the Spanish-speaking church that uses our building on Sunday afternoons. We combined our worship teams, singing songs in both English and Spanish. Those of us who understand both languages had a great time singing along with heart and soul. Those in the congregation who speak only one or the other language could enjoy any of the music, but they could join their voices and their “amen” only when the words were ones they could understand. God was just as glorified by any of it – but it was not the same worship experience for all. Single-language speakers were able to be fully engaged ONLY when the singing was in their own language. They spent the service alternating between being participants and being just an audience.
There’s a difference. Perhaps sometimes when people say they don’t get anything “out of” a particular style of service, what they really mean is that they don’t feel like they are able to put anything IN to it because it’s not in their “language”, as it were. They may go about expressing that disconnect in a manner that is not helpful, but simply dismissing them isn’t the answer. We accept individuality in virtually every other area of life. Why not in worship, as well? Why are we so afraid of, or dismissive of, or angry about, the fact that not everyone finds every worship song or worship style to be something that they can be fully engaged in???
Worship is about God, it’s true – but worship is not some disembodied, amorphic activity that somehow takes place without involving the participation of the worshipper. A bow may be used to play a snare drum, but the sound will hardly compare with the rich tones that same bow will obtain when used to play a violin. Drumsticks may tap on a saxophone, but you’ll get better music by blowing into the mouthpiece. We worship most fully when we worship as God, in His infinite creativity, designed us, with all the individuality that may entail.
What if we approached corporate worship like a classroom teacher whose focus is on helping the greatest number of students understand the lesson – turning our focus to trying to enable the greatest portion possible of our congregations to have some opportunity to be fully engaged in worship? No congregation can be all things to all its members, but surely many of our congregations can do better.
It’s hard, because it means giving consideration to ALL of the “each others” in our congregations. It requires humility by all involved, because love does not demand its own way. Those in the majority need to be willing to go out of their comfort zone in order to give others some opportunity to speak their own worship language. For those in the minority, while it is perfectly appropriate to ask for an opportunity for their worship needs to be met, no matter what the answer is, they should be prepared to do whatever they can to support the majority in their worship. We thus can express our love for God – can glorify Him – can worship Him – in honoring each other’s worship language.
Paul told the believers in Rome, in chapter 14, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.”
It’s all about our heart for each other. We can’t worship God in Spirit and in Truth while we’re cold-shouldering each other over whose music or style is the most God-centric or most Spirit-ual or most Truth-full.
We may worship the Lord with old traditional hymns accompanied by a single piano, or with a modern worship song consisting of two verses, a chorus, and a bridge, all repeated a dozen times, accompanied by a full rock band at volumes that could be heard over a jet engine. We may sing only Psalms, and acapella at that. We may use hymnbooks or three-story-high big screen projections. We may lift our hands and dance and clap, or we may sit sedately. There is no one “right” way to worship, but tearing each other down, and disrespecting each other’s worship language is most certainly wrong.
To God be the glory – no matter what worship we use!
All in the Family
Posted on: November 15, 2015
Most of those reading this post are probably aware of the Great Starbucks Red Cup Anti-Christmas Controversy. Since coffee and I are not on speaking terms (we don’t even wave in passing), I am generally oblivious to the trends in beanland, but this one invaded my FB feed. I guess Starbucks has a tradition of having some kind of special cup for the holiday season with a holiday symbol of some kind on it, but THIS year, the chain is using just a Plain. Red. Cup. That decision to not put any kind of Christmas or holiday or even just WINTER symbol on its holiday cup apparently rattled some Christians’ cages, convincing them that this is yet another attempt to remove Christmas from the American retail scene.
I confess I rolled my eyes when I heard about I, and I wasn’t alone in the feeling of “Oh, great – another situation where Christians look like loonies!” Pretty soon came a counter-reaction not only from non-Christians but from fellow Christians as well making fun of the Christians who objected to the Plain. Red. Cup. For example, one meme had a picture of a red cup with its wrap-around insulator reading, “If your worship depends on having a snowflake on your cup, then YOU are the one who needs Jesus.” Plenty of us hit “like” or “share” on that one.
A staple of parenting comedy sketches goes something like this. “Ya ever notice, when the kid wins the award for football, Dad boasts to everyone ‘Yeah, that’s MY BOY!’, but when the kid breaks the big screen TV, suddenly Dad’s yelling at Mom, ‘Just look at what YOUR SON did today!!’?” Recently, when our pastor preached on the Prodigal Father (or Prodigal Son, as it’s more commonly known) in Luke 15, I noticed the Bible has its own version of that.
We all know the bullet points. At the end of the story, the older brother comes home and the servant tells him, “Hey, your baby brother’s home and your dad’s celebrating!” Big Bro sits on the porch and pouts. Dad comes out and pleads with him to come join the party. Big Bro says no, reminds Dad of what a scumbag Baby Bro has been, and, on the other hand, what an exemplary son HE has been and accuses Dad of not properly appreciating him. He moves on in vs. 30 to the coup de grace: “But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!” Catch that? Not “my brother”. “This SON OF YOURS.” Big Bro so disowned his brother that he wouldn’t even acknowledge the relationship between them. Dad pleads with him to enter into his (the father’s) joy and rejoice that “This, YOUR BROTHER” has returned, but Big Bro will have none of it. He’d rather sit outside on the porch and wallow in being the wounded, self-righteous, Good Son than go in to a party where, instead of enjoying that lofty status, he will be one of two brothers equally beloved by their mutual father.
Now, to get back to the Red Cup Controversy. It’s a silly one, absolutely, but in the reactions it drew, I think it is illustrative of what can happen in our responses to other Christians. All too often, when one group of Christians takes a particular public stand or public action with which we disagree, especially one which we find frankly embarrassing, such as the red cup controversy, it is tempting to, like Big Bro, essentially disown our brothers and sisters. “Well, yes, I’m a Christian,” we declare, then hastily add,” – but I’m not one of THOSE Christians!” In other words, we may grudgingly acknowledge that they are sons and daughters of the Father, but we’ll be darned if we’re going to own up to them being our brothers and sisters!
Don’t think I’m speaking here as if I’m not on the guilty list! (Just look at my own reaction to the initial news of the controversy.) It is because I know myself to be so guilty that the issue bothers me. There should be plenty of room in God’s family to disagree on a wide scope of opinions and perspectives. The early church certainly had its share of differences. Figuring out just what this new freedom in Christ meant was sometimes a head-scratcher. Again and again Paul called on followers of Christ to be united – not necessarily in opinion, but always in love. He pled with Euodia and Syntyche of Philippi to agree – not with each other, but in the Lord. The issue isn’t whether or not we see everything the same. The issue is whether we truly see the whole family as the same – not only as God’s children, but as our siblings.
Even if another Christian does something that you think makes all of us look stupid, claiming that “he may be your SON, but he sure ain’t my BROTHER” is an argument that just doesn’t hold water with God.
Not even in a red cup.
[Note: Something is off with the formatting for paragraphs when the draft actually posts, but I am giving up trying to fix it! Sorry.]
I grew up in South Central Texas, as belted in the Bible as you could get. We attended CHBaptist Church, a real big church just a mile or so up the road, right past my elementary school. (Baptist churches in Texas come in three size: Real Big, Really, Really Big, and outright Gigantormously Big.) Like all good Baptists, we were at church whenever the doors were open: Sunday morning for Sunday School and worship, Sunday evening for Training Union and service, Wednesdays for Prayer Service, the annual Revival , annual Missions conferences, special speakers, potlucks, VBS– you name it, the Heumier crew was present, front and center. CHBC was an integral part of family life – and we were an integral part of CHBC.
On the first night out on vacation in the summer when I was about 8 or 9, just after all seven of us had gotten settled into our sleeping bags in the big, green canvas tent, Mama said she had something to tell us: we were leaving CHBC. When we got back from vacation, we would begin searching for a new church. Although it felt strange to leave the familiar place, most of my friends were from school rather than church, and I disliked (and even feared) the hellfire-and-brimstone pastor, so I wasn’t too unhappy about leaving. We weren’t the only family to exit stage left at the time, but I was too young to be fully aware of the pain and anguish the split left in its wake. We found another church (a Really, Really Big one), and were very happy there until we had to move away because of my dad’s job transfer.
Since then, I have attended 11 different churches. At the 6 churches my dh and I have been at since our marriage in ’82, my dh and I have been through 3 splits. The first was when we and several other families (including the pastor’s) left our small church after it became clear that most of the congregation had a very different vision of what the purpose of the church was. It was an uncomfortable, though not a rancorous, split.
We were at our next church for 13 years, involved in leadership at high levels. In the first split there, involving the ouster of a pastor for serious cause, Rob was Executive Director, and we were in the majority who remained behind. The offenses did not take place with outside witnesses, so it took many months before the leadership had its case prepared. In the meantime rumor, anger, and bitterness ran amok, and fault lines split wide between those who believed the pastor and those who believed the accusers. In the end, an overwhelming majority of the congregation was convinced of the need to remove the pastor from office. Since his conduct in the aftermath of his ouster gave very public demonstration of the veracity of the accusations, some of those who had been on his side acknowledged that they had been “taken in” by his publicly plausible charisma. Still, there were many congregants left bruised and battered on either side. Friendships that had lasted for years ended; others were severely strained.
The second split at that church came several pastors later, when Rob was Head Elder. A new pastor was brought in who turned out to have a very, shall we say, aggressive style, very decided ideas of how he wanted things done, and little or no respect for anyone who didn’t agree with him. A trickle of people began leaving within 6 months of his arrival. The situation came to a head when he proposed a plan that completely and unabashedly violated the church’s constitution and by-laws, and enough of a majority at the congregational meeting voted to begin implementation. A number of other families, including ours, joined the Diaspora at that point. Altogether, some quarter to a third of the families from the congregation left; most, like us, had been long-time members and heavily involved leaders.
Both of those splits were extremely traumatic, leaving the pasture littered with casualties. In the first split, most leaving went to churches of other denominations, but in the second, being families with strong ties to the denomination, we mostly ended up at sister churches, which created especially awkward situations since we were quite likely to be thrown together with members from our previous church at conferences, retreats, and so on. Some folks actively avoided each other, some folks just tacitly ignored each other, while others pretended nothing had happened and we’d never been at the same church. Over time, some relationships were re-established on an amicable footing, but for others the rupture was permanent.
This past December and January the church that I and my oldest daughter and family attend (a different denomination), experienced a split, with about 15 of our families leaving. Although I have been attending this church for about 5 years now, I have not become involved very deeply, for various reasons, so it is no wonder that I was entirely taken by surprise – but from what I’ve heard, not many others in the congregation knew the problems existed until the situation exploded, either. As is almost always the case, for those involved, the split caused wrenching pain and much collateral damage, both for those who stayed and those who left.
In almost every split I’ve been part of/witness to, there have been a few people whose actions, I think, helped lessen the hurt, and brought faster healing of what hurt there was. I’m sad – and ashamed – that I’ve transgressed some of them, but I hope that I’ve learned from the better example. Let me tell you these things I’ve learned.
I’ve learned that a split, in and of itself, is not necessarily the worst thing that can befall a church. God works in all things – even conflict and splits. He may use a split to help a congregation clarify its calling by the issues brought to light in conflict. If the church has been trying to go in two directions at once, neither will be getting done well; splitting may free the church to focus on one direction rather than the other. Leaders may find themselves encouraged in their leadership, or may see areas where they needed humbling so that they can be better shepherds. A gap left by someone leaving may open up opportunities for someone unexpected to serve. Sometimes we stay in a place out of sheer inertia, even though there are serious issues that bother us; conflict may challenge us with the question, “Is this really where I am supposed to be?” God may use a split to move part of one flock to a part of the pasture where they are needed more. That’s certainly what happened with the Diaspora. (And the church we left? It didn’t die, or even come near collapse – which I must confess the ugly truth that part of me would have almost enjoyed as vindication of how right we were to object to that pastor. It recovered fairly quickly and went on to be strong and healthy. )
I have been struck that one of the first instructions given in many books on marriage is that both parties should begin any conflict by assuming the goodwill of the other. That is, each spouse should act in the belief that the other spouse does, in fact, love him/her, does, in fact, desire the best for him/her, and that whatever is going on, the INTENT is not to wound him/her. If we applied this concept to churches, acting on the assumption that neither side wants to destroy the church, is deliberately trying to wound others who disagree, or is intentionally trying to cause a split, if we acknowledged that both sides share the same goal of seeing the church thrive (differ though we do on the “how” it would be best achieved), it would change the whole tone of any conflict – both how we would act ourselves, and how we would interpret others’ actions. If we could “agree in the Lord” on this primary assumption, it might keep us from “enemizing” each other – creating a “we are the good guys and we’re right” and “you are the enemy and you’re wrong” mindset that prevents any real communication from occurring, and only serves to set each side up to dig in its heels to defend its position.
If we are among the ones who stay behind, assuming the goodwill of the other party would include assuming that the decision took place only after considerable prayer to discern God’s will, and is as painful for them as it is for us. Though there may have been a specific incident that proved the “tipping point” that triggered the timing of their leaving, we should not belittle the decision as being “only” because of that incident. We need to acknowledge that we do not know everything that went into the decision – especially since even those leaving may not, at the time, recognize all the factors. Going through this kind of trauma without the support of the flock you’ve been a part of is horrendously difficult, especially if you’ve been there a long time and your connections are deep, so we should be willing to meet those who have left in a spirit of mutual grief and support, whether we agree with their positions or their decision to leave. If we speak respectfully of those who have left, even if still dealing with feelings of personal hurt, we take the higher road.
And what of those who leave? If we have decided that leaving is what we have to do, it can be helpful to if possible explain that decision to those who will be directly affected or who are likely to notice our absence, such as people with whom we are on boards with, or groups with whom we serve. The intent should not be to foment further discontent or to get others to take up an offence on our behalf, of course, nor should we reveal information that is confidential or that the listener does not need to know, but to simply disappear opens the door to all kinds of speculation, and may leave some tender souls feeling undeserved guilt that it was somehow their fault. As we should be ready to accept overtures of concern and support from those we have left, we should be as ready to make those overtures ourselves. Those leaving a church are faced with an additional temptation to voice their complaints to those outside the church, but if we remember that that church is still part of God’s family, we will be careful how, and how much, and with whom, we share.
When it comes to conflict, God isn’t impressed by how correct we are. We may be perfectly “right” – and still be utterly wrong. If we don’t speak to one another in love and humility, if we are quick to take offence, if we are unwilling to listen, we are wrong. If we close our minds and hearts to the possibility that others might have some valid points, valid concerns, valid criticisms, then we are wrong. If we gossip about, slander, and judge one another, then we are wrong. It may be easy to convince ourselves of the righteousness of our position, but if we go about treating one another in an unrighteous manner, we are wrong. If we let our position on the disagreement become more important to us than our brothers and sisters, we are wrong. “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” I Peter 4:8
No split is pain-free, but God willing, we can at least minimize the need for Excedrin.