So I mentioned that I've been thinking about group think verses individuality. Specifically, I've been thinking about organized religion in the form of the church. I think that my generation - and possibly others - tend to be very critical of organized church. Here's some of my musings.
For some reason, I often feel caught in the middle between the people who are badly hurt by the group and the group. Here's some of my frustrations...
- I rarely can get both sides of the story. It's usually a lot easier to get the side of the angry, grieved party than the groupthink.
- We assume sins against us as horrendously intentional rather than painfully accidental.
- When we're sinned against, we usually want justification, not to cover the offense and seek reconciliation, patiently reaching out toward the offenders.
- When we do want to cover the offense, it's often because we're afraid of conflict on matters where the boat should be rocked.
- I believe in the institution of the organized church.
- I don't believe that all churches are good churches.
- I believe in loyalty to a specific church.
- I don't believe in blind loyalty to a specific church.
- I believe it's important to not be tearing down the character or work of other Christians.
- I believe it's important to know the flaws of one's leaders.
I really hate the typical pattern I see, which is that Charles joins the church. Charles is enamored by the church and gets heavily involved. After a while, Charles becomes disillusioned by a combination of factors. Some of this is simply that Charles is loosing his blinders and seeing issues that were problems all along. Other issues are just Charles' take on them.
Charles feels like he can't talk to people. Maybe he tries talking to someone "in leadership" - say, Stan - and the conversation goes badly. Stan doesn't really see the issues Charles sees, or doesn't see them as the priority, or doesn't do a good job communicating his concern to Charles. Charles is hurt and angry. He feels like most of the church group supports Stan. He's angry at his church friends for not taking his side more. Charles doesn't have very many people that he can talk with about these problems - and few, if any, of them are in the group itself.
The few friends Charles does talk to don't have the other side of the situation - partly because they aren't involved in the group and partly because Stan hasn't shared his side of the story with complete strangers. These friends have few choices: They either foolishly empathize about how unjustly hurt Charles is; they staunchly defend Stan without any facts; or they feel caught in the middle without anything to say.
I really don't like the dynamic above in a lot of ways. Here's a few of my thoughts...
- As Stan, it's helpful to frequently discuss major failings - both personal and in leadership.
- As Stan, it's also important to realize that what others are seeing may not be what you are intending. Creating opportunities for others, especially acquaintances/strangers, to share what they see is helpful.
- As Charles, it's vital to seek out and apply the Biblical teachings on reconciliation, forgiveness, bitterness, and the like. We don't like the "If you have something against your brother, go to him." Usually the reason for not doing it? He won't listen. Maybe not, but I think we are really resistant to doing a sincere, prayerful, competent, humble reconciliation attempt.
- As friends, know that there are two sides, both probably somewhat in the wrong.
- As friends, blessed on the peacemakers. Not those who pretend conflict doesn't exist, but those who promote reconciliation between grieved parties.
One final thought: I think church can be particularly susceptible to the feeling that "no one else sees this issue". Why? Because good churches don't encourage gossip. And so there is a much smaller set of "public knowledge". At work, people have a reputation. Their flaws and irritating mannerisms are public knowledge because of gossip. So when I am hurt, it's easier for me to chalk it up to "so-and-so is just jerk about X".
In church, without gossip, I can't easily compare my experiences against "the group consensus". And so it's easier for me to feel hurt rather than realizing that Stan is just a blind fool in some areas.
Is it possible for a church people to be open about the weaknesses they see in others without becoming a gossiping church?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think it's not so much that church people don't gossip ... within any group you'll find people who gossip and people who don't. It's hard for the church today to be open about the weaknesses of its members because of a shift (that happened after the Englightenment) toward an individualistic, consumer-model of faith. If Charles has a problem with Stan or anything else in a particular congregation he will simply leave and resume church shopping. From the time of the early Christian church up through the Reformation, much more emphasis was placed on maintaining the community ... Charles' discontent would have been dealt with publicly and communally.
So both models are fairly problematic ... I'm not sure anyone wants to return to public discipline in church. Ouch. My systematic theology professor pointed out that no one wants to talk about heresy anymore because of the way we used to deal with heretics. But it also seems like, by not talking about issues of divergence and convergence, we miss opportunities to build a stronger community (both more diverse and more united in shared Christian discourse and practices.) Charles might not have to leave if, say, someone did listen to him ... and maybe challenge him a little bit.
Sorry such a long comment ... yours was a good and thought-provoking post.
Hows about the double speak which leads to the group think which further impeads our abilities to cope with ones abilities to find one's self in the "church" environment?
Dare I say "church-isms"
Mike makes a good point about church-isms ... I think there's a major disconnect between what church language should be and what it is ... Christian discourse is essentially radical, life-changing, life-giving, call-to-discipleship-get-out-there-and-love-your-neighbor-and-your-enemy good stuff. In real life, the words are often said without meaning and received without understanding. I'm not sure that means church-talk is irredeemable or inherently harmful. What's the alternative to church-isms?
As a "Charles" you make alos tof great points Alan. Sometimes I think people get upset that the blinders came off because they liked the dark.
Sometimes we are so afraid of causing division because we have made an idol out of multiplication.
Thanks for the perspective, Alan. No real other thoughts to post, but we may talk about it in the future.
Post a Comment