Threads from Henry's Web

Category: United Methodist Church

  • Denominationalism – The Disease

    Consider these situations:

    • A Sunday School class for young adults is growing by leaps and bounds. Many young men and women who are not members of the church are showing up just for the class. The church leadership shuts the class down because it is not using denominationally approved curriculum.
    • A speaker who is not a member of the same denomination is invited by a pastor. The guest has an extensive publication record, which the pastor has read. He has spoken to other groups of the same denomination, and even taught pastoral continuing education programs. Leaders in the church make such a fuss that the speaker cannot be allowed to speak at the church because of the divisiveness. (None of the objectors have read any of the speaker’s books, nor have they ever heard him speak.)
    • A leader claims that only denominational material can be used, because if it’s in print, the members will believe it, and so the leadership must make sure that nothing “wrong” appears before the members in print.

    I’m guessing that most of my more liberal readership is imagining that these are stories that come from my conservative upbringing. If that is what you assume, then you’re wrong. Now I could match those stories with ones about attitudes from my upbringing as a Seventh-day Adventist, a group that surely is infected with denominationalism, but I actually took those stories from my experience in United Methodist churches.

    It’s interesting to note that my experiences as a Seventh-day Adventist and those as a Methodist are not all that different. There is a difference of degree, there is some difference in the specific theological issues, but the attitudes are so similar that I can tell stories of what I experienced in Adventist churches to Methodist congregations without specifying the denomination, and they ring true, and similarly I can discuss Methodist experiences with my Adventist family and friends and they have no problem relating.

    I find it tremendously humorous in Methodist circles that the same people who criticize the denomination and the agencies in Nashville bitterly, will also act as though having “Abingdon” or “Cokesbury” on the cover of their book somehow makes it “safe.” One wonders if they have really considered that issue logically.

    This is one symptom of the disease–and I do think it is a disease–of denominationalism. By denominationalism I mean a view that suggests that one’s own denomination is really the true Christianity, that books written by folks in other denominations are dangerous simply because they aren’t from the same denomination, or even that people in one’s own denomination are somehow closer to God, simply by virtue of being a member of that denomination.

    I do not mean here loyalty to one’s organization. As a member of a United Methodist congregation I am obligated to support my church and to do things that build it up. I believe that denominationalism is actually destructive of my church congregation. I also don’t mean here that all selection of curriculum materials is bad, but rather that selection based simply on the “it wasn’t made here” criterion is dangerous and fear based.

    This type of denominationalism results in fear-based decisions. It tends to isolate people from other members of the body of Christ who worship across the street or down the road. It tends toward theological inbreeding. It produces sheep in all of the negative senses, and none of the positive ones.

    There are a number of positive things about denominational churches:

    1. Accountability to some higher authority. Completely independent churches can have accountability problems and are even more subject to inbreeding of ideas than are denominational churches. But note that the variation by congregations is pretty wide. I’ve encountered very open independent churches and denominational churches that were closed to other congregations in their same denomination.
    2. Stronger connections to other Christian churches. Within the denomination this is obvious, but it is also possible that the denomination, through programs of outreach and cooperation with other groups, can help the local church be more connected.
    3. “Brand” identification. When I’m visiting a town and looking for a place to eat, if I have no local recommendations, I’m likely to go for a chain restaurant, simply because I know where I’m going. For some people, being able to identify the general focus of a local congregation through the denominational label can be helpful.

    There are certainly more points that can be made. Take the inverse for independent churches. Remember, of course, that all generalizations, including this one, are wrong! If you are looking for a congregation in which to worship and serve, you may need to look for the symptoms of denominationalism even in the smallest independent congregation.

    My suggestion? While being loyal to any organization to which you have offered your loyalty, work actively to build connections and understanding. Understanding your neighbor does not mean necessarily agreeing with your neighbor. If you think church members believe everything that’s in print, instead of trying to limit what they see, try to educate them to realize that this is not so. I actually believe you’ll find that church members aren’t as stupid as you think.

  • Free Speech, Appropriate Speech, and Communion Wafers

    The incident in which a university student took a communion wafer from a Catholic church instead of eating it has stirred up an incredible amount of controversy. For background I’m going to link to just three posts, which in turn will allow you to find all the information you want on the incident and probably more.

    These are:

    Those posts and the related links should give you a chance to discover what you want to know.

    There is one particular point I want to comment on myself, however, and that is the confusion of arguments appropriate for free speech as opposed to appropriate speech. What I mean by that distinction is the difference between actions that should be legally sanctioned, and that one might restrain oneself from taking.

    I’m a pretty extreme advocate of free speech. I’m opposed to campaign finance laws because I see them as infringing on free speech. I think pornography should be legal with the exception of child pornography involving exploitation of children. I think it should be quite legal to insult, vilify, and ridicule. I’m opposed to speech codes in most circumstances. (Private property and gatherings are an obvious exception, where people choose to come together under particular rules.)

    At the same time I restrain myself from much of that speech, and there is a good deal that I believe to be legal that I will not listen to or watch, nor will I facilitate its appearance in any way. That includes the majority of what’s classified as pornography. (I restrict this to “majority” because some people have some incredibly wide definitions of pornography. I will watch an ‘R’ rated movie, for example.) I don’t like excessive use of profanity, and make it my aim not to use such language myself.

    But I believe that there must be a difference between what I think is a good idea, and what is legal. That is a difference that is essential to a free, and thereby diverse, society. I like to restrain myself from certain types of insults to whole groups of people. In some cases I do so because I believe that such insults are simply not true. Most general insults (“all Muslims are violent”, “all Christians are bigots”, “all gays and lesbians are promiscuous”) are not true in the first place, and thus truthfulness alone is enough reason not to use them. Others involve simple courtesy.

    Now let me relate this to the issue of the communion wafers and the reaction to them. I feel this one personally because though I’m not Catholic, I am a fairly high church Methodist who holds to a “real presence” view of the Eucharist. In other words I am one of those people who thinks that something happens when the minister blesses the elements of the Eucharist, and I hold those elements sacred. I don’t believe in transubstantiation (though I should note that many comments have indicated an incorrect understanding of that doctrine) but rather that Jesus is especially present through the Holy Spirit. I believe they should be treated with respect, just as other sacred symbols.

    I’m not particularly offended by people who disagree with me on this, but I am offended at the idea of desecration. Let me distinguish a few gradations here. Speech indicating that my view of the Eucharist is stupid is inoffensive. If you don’t believe what I believe, you’ll find my belief silly at best, and my desire to protect some bread and juice as a bit ridiculous. I’m OK with that. A college student grabbing a wafer is a college prank. It’s a little nasty, but the reaction has been way over the top. College students will do silly things. I know I did. (Note here that a Catholic will almost certainly see this act as a more serious thing than I do based on our respective theologies and traditions.)

    Trying to get some communion wafers so as to especially desecrate them is something I find offensive. It diminishes the stature of the person proposing it in my eyes. Presumably that person will not care about that, but it’s important to understand my position. I have no problem associating with and cooperating in many areas with someone who despises my religion. There is a level of action regarding that contempt that will make such friendly relations difficult.

    I want to add one note. At least in my tradition, the fact that bread was made for communion is not the critical issue, so if you “score” the bread before it’s blessed, it would be a simple property crime, and one on an item of very small value. So in order to commit the desired blasphemy and insult, one would need to get bread that had already been blessed, which could get into some interesting legal issues. Just how much can you disrupt a church service without meriting a “disturbing the peace” charge or some such thing. I really don’t know and hope I don’t have to figure it out.

    Now my point here is that I have found some behavior that is insulting to me, something I find very inappropriate and even reprehensible. I can argue why I feel that way, but many other people will not agree with me. Should I be protected from such an insult?

    In a word, No! Barring some action stepping across legal lines in some other area (theft, actually disturbing the peace as opposed to existing where someone would prefer you don’t, violence done to an actual person) I believe the law should permit me to be insulted in this way. The wafer may be the body of Christ to me, but it’s a cracker to the law. The result is much worse if the law starts to recognize something spiritual.

    So what is my own actual reaction? “PZ, I think that was quite rude.” That pretty much covers it. And I don’t want that opinion of mine to have the backing of law.

    [And just to be clear these e-mails to PZ are both rude and illegal, and those who make such threats should face the full weight of the law.]

  • (Yet Another) Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup

    Allan Bevere has posted the latest Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup. I wanted to do more than a brief link to thank him for his efforts.

    Do you think of these roundups as the parenthetical part of my title would suggest? I can tell you from having done the Christian Carnival as well as various selections from the Moderate Christian Blogroll that they take some time, thought, and effort.

    Yes, but what good are they? All I can tell you is what they do for me. I have 108 feeds in my bloglines account. Given that about half a dozen of those are blogs to which I contribute and I just want to watch, that means around an even hundred that I’m following. I actually read the headlines for all of those, though I only read a scattering of stories. I often clip posts and then end up deleting them when they get too old. Once I’ve done that, I’m pretty much done!

    The roundups and carnivals introduce me to new blogs, new writers, and new topics. For example, the MBWR this week listed Richard Heyduck’s post Two Big Mistakes and rated it one of the two best in the Methodist blogosphere. I quite agree. I’m going to link to it from the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter and try to get our membership to discuss the topic a bit.

    I’ve found numerous blogs in this way, and so I thank the folks who make such things possible.

  • Exceptional Church Service at 1st UMC Niagara Falls

    Even when traveling I like to make it to church, and I especially like to visit new churches and see just what they’re doing. One often ends up in an annoying service, but I’ve also had some of my most encouraging moments with regard to the state of the church in attending services I picked out of the yellow pages (as I did today) when traveling.

    Today’s choice was First United Methodist Church of Niagara Falls. I couldn’t even find a web site for them, but I could follow the directions to their address, so off I went. I’ve previously blogged about St. Paul’s United Methodist Church in Niagara Falls, which is now closed. That was disappointing though not too surprising due to small congregation and large building that was demanding to maintain. The good news is that the building was donated to a growing congregation and is thus still being used to God’s glory.

    I generally am not going to blog about negative experiences, and certainly not by name. There’s enough negative stuff going around. I’ll do what I can to influence United Methodist worship by underlining the things I like.

    Since Niagara Falls First UMC doesn’t appear to have a web site, I’m not sure what the situation is with the pastor. Rev. Tom Kraft, listed as senior pastor of Pendleton Center UMC was presiding, and appeared to be covering the church as pastor. A retired pastor under appointment is listed on the conference web site. In any case, Pastor Tom conducted an excellent worship service.

    Amongst the things I really appreciated were the relaxed style, even for a service with liturgy in a traditional format, well-done music. The choir isn’t large, but is accompanied and well-directed by Carl Mayer. I could listen to him play twice as much without getting bored, but then the service would probably be too long. He chooses music that is well suited to the choir size and abilities. (Probably the most common failure in church choir directors is selected music that doesn’t suit the choir. Even a non-musician such as myself will notice the results.) He also plays some engaging music on the piano.

    Probably my biggest pet peeve, and the one I encounter the most frequently is a communion service that is sort of an appendix to the service. You’ve probably all experienced such services. The whole service appears to go one direction, and then all of a sudden it feels like someone suddenly remembers communion. This is followed by a rote reading of the liturgy from the UM hymnal with no additions, a very formal blessing of the elements, and offering the elements in an efficient and rapid way.

    In this case, the liturgy of communion fit in, Pastor Tom connected liturgy and proclamation of the word seamlessly, “words appropriate to the season” were sprinkled where they belonged, and thus the Eucharist became part of a unified act of worship. The pastor prayed for people at a kneeling rail which I think is an awesome addition to the service.

    It is unfortunate that the sanctuary was much less than half filled. The folks who weren’t sitting in those pews missed something special.

    I say all this not to flatter or advertise a particular congregation but simply to relate my own experience, and hopefully to encourage some folks. I’m not a consultant on liturgy, and I have no idea what next week will bring at this church. But why not take the trouble to visit churches on vacation? Sometimes you will be disappointed, but many times you will be blessed, and maybe you will have an opportunity to bless others. I have found that I receive a blessing many more times than I’m disappointed. Often I see things that I can take back to my home church and apply. I also find that actually experiencing various United Methodist churches is a strong antidote to the negative attitude of some United Methodists about our denomination.

    There was nothing really complex used in this service. Simple props and a video screen enhanced the presentation of the Word, but the props didn’t take over the message. The sermon was on “Handling Complaints” from Exodus 16. I particularly like the suggestion of the “five finger check”–when someone claims “everyone” is complaining, ask them to name five. I think that would work. Enthusiasm, energy, and a serious effort at congregational involvement all paid off. Of course it didn’t hurt at all that the pastor presented a message he clearly believed, and thought important, or that he clearly was fully involved in the Eucharist.

    I won’t be in Niagara Falls for another Sunday, so this will be the only church service for this trip. I hope all those faithful readers who have tomorrow off will enjoy themselves, and I empathize with those who have to work!

  • Hunting Down the Holy Spirit

    One interesting privilege I had during the Brownsville Revival here in Pensacola was meeting groups going to and from the revival. At the time I was a member of Pine Forest United Methodist Church, and groups would stay in the Family Life Center there in order to be in range to get to the revival which was around 10 miles.

    They would come by bus, or less frequently in a caravan of cars, sleep on the floor, and then get up early in the morning to stand all day in line, hoping to get into the main sanctuary for the service. Sometimes they would try to talk to some of the Pine Forest UMC staff or members who had experience of the revival to try to find out what they were about to experience.

    At the time I lived in a trailer on the campus of the church. I had volunteered to check all the doors late at night. It is very rare at a church when you can’t find some door unlocked when it ought to be locked! In doing my late night check I would occasionally find groups that had returned from the revival and were trying to digest their experiences. Thus I could hear from them both before and after.

    I’m going to use these experiences to make a composite picture of two different pastors with whom I spent some time talking and praying during this time frame. There were many who could be represented by each of them, but I’ve chosen the extreme set of circumstances.

    The first was on a second or third visit. He reported new growth and new activity in his home church after he had visited Brownsville. “It isn’t really anything like Brownsville. It’s unique,” he told me. “But I was really blessed here, and I’m bringing others in my group this time so they can be blessed.”

    The second told me that he was close to retirement and expressed desperation that he wanted his ministry to count. To him, the revival at Brownsville represented the one chance of getting something real done in his ministry. Over time, his church shrunk to nearly nothing, and he had to move on.

    I am left asking just what was the fruit of the Brownsville revival. Is it best represented by the first pastor or the second? Is it represented by those who rededicated their lives to God and to service and carried it out in the way God called them to do, or those who became desperate and tried to duplicate what they saw?

    Those are, unfortunately, the type of binary questions that I tend to dislike. We tend to use the “know them by their fruit” model (Matthew 7:15-20). The problem is that quite frequently both sides have good “fruit” arguments. There are people who are greatly aided or even restarted in their spiritual lives. There are also people who go off the rails in one way or another, damaging themselves or others. The more adventurous tend to blame those who take some negative path on some force other than the revival. They claim the revival is good, but if you bring something bad there, the devil will get to work and ruin the result. The more theologically and spiritually cautious note the failures and are most concerned about those who are harmed.

    In my experience, however, you can say that about almost any movement and certainly most churches. I have seen the same church congregation be a tremendous blessing in one person’s life, while it becomes the very last church that some other person will attend because he has been injured in some way.

    Any time you have a group of people who are active, there is going to be a mixture both of people and of results. Even though Jesus doesn’t address this all that directly, I think a better model than the fruit is the weeds among the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). This doesn’t mean that one should not check the fruit, but rather that one must realize that when people are involved results will generally be mixed. I would want to have a very comprehensive knowledge of a ministry before I said that its fruit was totally bad and it should be rejected as a whole. At the same time, I think it is very important to observe danger signs and give warnings.

    Amongst those things to watch are:

    1. A tendency to focus on visible but extraneous things such as being slain in the spirit
    2. Getting stuck, i.e. simply hanging around all the time “being revived” instead of finding a constructive calling and doing it
    3. A focus on a single person or place. Note that this doesn’t mean nobody should go anywhere to experience God’s presence. Elijah had an important experience after running to Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19), surely a more daunting journey in his day than a bit of a flight to a church in Florida is now.
    4. Unbalanced emphasis either on personal experience and spirituality over study and community, or the reverse
    5. Desperation. Desperate people try to force things, and are very susceptible to pretending. If you must have a miracle, you just may invent one or see one where none exists.
    6. Duplication. What happened at _____ (wherever) must happen here. That’s how I’ll know God is working.

    The question has been put to me by friends of whether I’ll find my way to Lakeland or at least follow it on GodTV. The answer is that this is not very likely. Is that because I have made a studied and negative decision? Well, simply the fact that I haven’t even watched it where conveniently available on TV should answer that. No, I haven’t made any studied decision. The things I have said are not, and cannot be directed specifically at Lakeland, because I have too little knowledge.

    The reason, however, that I’m not involved is that I’m already involved with what God is doing in my life and in the life of the church congregation I have just joined. The Holy Spirit is moving at First United Methodist Church in Pensacola. It bears no resemblance to rumors of Lakeland. I can say emphatically that it bears no resemblance to Brownsville, with which I had some acquaintance. There are no large altar calls and nobody has fallen on the floor.

    What is happening is that the church is experiencing steady growth. It is unable to accommodate all the activities of the members and the ministries to the community within existing space, and that space is not small. The ministers are preaching a strong gospel message, and people are responding. The leadership has determined that they are going to serve the community, help those less fortunate, and generally be a witness for Jesus in their downtown community. The senior pastor declared that the one and only reason for the existence of a church was to fulfill the gospel commission, or you could restate that to be a witness for Jesus Christ. I’m excited to be joining in with that in whatever way God calls me to do so.

    Do I want to set one way up against another? No. Never. But it’s the latter to which I am personally called.

    Peter Kirk wrote about a visit to the Dudley outpouring. I was interested in his experience. While he was unhappy with some elements he still received a blessing which he was able to bring back to his church. That is a positive testimony. He also provides a list of links to other comments on either Dudley or Lakeland.

    Again, I’m struck by the “weeds and wheat” metaphor for these events. The ideal is often the enemy of the good, and I think this can be true in the case of outpourings. Unfortunately, many on either side expect one to either be wholly for or wholly against, using another set of sayings of Jesus as their model. Well, I’m wholly for Jesus and wholly against that other guy, but when a number of people are involved, I suspect the division is a little harder to make.

    (PS: Peter Kirk has also written a great deal on the Holy Spirit, and I’ve been bookmarking some, intending to write, but I have simply not had time to do the subject justice.)

  • Does Science Education Lead to Atheism

    Several discussions have led me to think about this question over the last few days. There is a significant group of scientists who think that the inevitable result of scientific knowledge is a loss of faith or a turn to atheism. On the other side of the line there is a significant group of fundamentalist Christians who feel much the same way. The major difference is in which they would give up. A recent MSNBC.com story gives the encouraging reminder that about 40% of scientists believe in God. Encouraging, indeed, but for which side?

    There has been a great deal of discussion on just how compatible religion is with science. Obviously for myself I’ve decided that good science is compatible with my theology, though not without some adjustments to how I understand the theology. My theology today is not the same as what I grew up with in any number of ways. But let’s lay that one aside.

    What does the church offer to the educated person? My education is related largely to theology, and I have spent a good deal of my church life being urged to ignore some things, greatly simplify others, and basically to leave my education behind at the doors to the church. This is by no means a universal attitude. At the same time as one person would be telling me not to bother people with things I knew, others would be inviting me to teach.

    But consider the difference between my education and that of an evolutionary biologist for example. Since I’m trained in Biblical studies and most particularly in languages, there is always someone in church who wants some portion of my expertise. I have even been invited to programs where I’m pretty certain my primary role was to sit with the other speakers and be “the guy who knows Greek.” There’s a certain respect for that. But the hypothetical evolutionary biologist isn’t going to find much call for his knowledge in church.

    Now that is the trial of the specialist. You have to gather with other specialists to talk about your specialty. But in church, other people frequently feel free to express uneducated opinions on just about any topic, and especially to talk about the great danger of education to faith, and the one way to be accepted in that society will be to claim that your education is not important to you.

    I’m painting this rather negatively, more so than I actually feel, but I do believe there is a problem. It’s variable with churches. In the United Methodist Church, for example, I have found a great deal of appreciation for education in any area. At the same time, for many people in the pews the educated person, especially one who questions any of the standard explanations of life, the universe, and everything, can be looked on with suspicion.

    In my view, faith and fellowship go together. Someone’s faith is not going to be nurtured when there are no other people to take that walk with them. While I think many churches do try, and I really appreciate the United Methodist congregations of which I’ve been a member, I think there will be a substantial problem for a scientist looking for a congregation where he or she can explore and examine faith freely and openly–in other words, to have constructive fellowship.

    It may well be that a significant number of those scientists who have slipped away from faith did so not because they were philosophically convinced that God does not exist, but because they never found a place to explore faith in a vital and constructive way with other people who welcomed their questions, their doubts, and even their unbelief.

    I do not mean in any way to question the intelligence or judgment of those who have made a conscious decision based on their view of the evidence to reject belief in God or to become agnostic. I even find many of their arguments quite reasonable myself in a certain context. But I suspect there are many who have slipped away from faith simply because they are not particularly trained to deal with spiritual issues, and those who should have helped them were unwilling, or perhaps unable, to deal with them doubts and all.

    I don’t know what numbers would be involved, but I’m convinced that having fellowship is an essential part of one’s faith journey. I’m further convinced that many people don’t take the fellowship needs of the educated seriously. Education is simply another characteristic of the people God brings together into his church; their needs need to be served as well.

  • Guilty of Pastoral Malpractice

    Thom Rainer posted an article on Lifeway’s Web Site claiming that pastors who did not preach penal substitutionary atonement (he didn’t use the term, he described the doctrine in very strong terms) are guilty of pastoral malpractice. He used the word “treasonous.”

    Will, a United Methodist pastor and blogger pleads guilty in that case. I know a few other United Methodist pastors who would join him in that. I was talking to one the other day who regards PSA as a serious heresy that leads in turn to a heretical view of the trinity. Not being as interested as others in just what “heresy” is, I won’t go there.

    A commenter on the Lifeway post cheers on Mr. Rainer, and comments on how people are tired of a “watered down gospel.” What I’m wondering is this: Why is it OK to water down God’s love, but it’s somehow “treasonous” to water down his wrath?

    I wonder which is more important.

  • UMC General Conference Endorses Clergy Letter Project

    I’m a little behind the power curve on this one, but I found out about these via an e-mail from Michael Zimmerman of the Clergy Letter Project.

    The first resolution is #80990 (tracking) which includes the line:

    * endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science, and urges United Methodist clergy participation;

    That one goes in the Social Principles, and the legislative tracking shows it as adopted.

    Even though the letter tells me the following two were passed, I don’t see them adopted or placed on one of the consent calendars according to the tracking. Perhaps one of my more politically savvy UM readers might comment on the procedure or where I may have looked in the wrong place.

    Resolution #80050 (tracking)added the line:

    We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.

    … to ¶160 E in the Book of Discipline, amongst other changes.

    And finally, #800839 (tracking) added the following to the Book of Resolutions:

    WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and State (paragraph 164, Book of Discipline, 2004, p. 119),

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.

    I should probably pay more attention to my own church’s politics, especially since I regard church politics as necessary. But to be honest, I’m just terrible at keeping up with these things. Nonetheless, I am pleased by this result, even if it is only the first of the three.

  • On Being a True Believer

    I’ve been thinking of writing this ever since I read Joe Carter’s post Plagued by Certainty, but I haven’t really had the time. You see, while there are certainly many things regarding which I disagree with Joe Carter, I find a certain resonance with his claim of certainty in matters of faith.

    This certainty does not extend to the full list, nor has it remained unquestioned throughout my life. Rather, I would call myself a true believer not because I have always been convinced, nor because I have a growing belief, but rather because I have made the maximum effort to disbelieve, and come up a failure.

    (more…)

  • The Need for Church Politics

    No, I’m not talking about the church getting involved in politics in general, nor about politicians speaking in church. I’m talking about the politics that goes into actually running the church. There’s a great deal of politics involved in the way churches are governed. But I’m not going to call for less–I’m going to call for more.

    You see, I believe that politics can range from the greatest curse to the greatest blessing in a church. One thing is impossible, however–to make the church free of politics. When people get together and make decisions in a group, politics happens. It’s not a bad thing; it’s the way we work together.

    What can be a very bad thing is when politics is left to go its own way and simply develop naturally. Then church Machiavellis, sometimes known as spiritual leaders, get to take over just because nobody else is involved. Now don’t intend either to put down real spiritual leaders or spiritual leadership qualities. The problem is when we don’t pay attention to how people get into leadership and how people lead after thay are in leadership, we often get people who think they are great spiritual leaders into positions where we need actual spiritual leaders.

    I have spent some time with folks involved in the charismatic movement within the United Methodist Church. I’m a bit of a charismatic myself, and have been dubbed a “liberal charismatic.” Now folks who are charismatic are much more interested in the work of the Spirit, in spontaneity, and following the guidance of the Spirit than they are in church rules, policies, and procedures.

    I noticed two things, and I think they both result from this attitude. First, committees in the church tended not to favor the charismatic position. Some of the charismatic folks would refuse to serve, some would miss meetings, and some simply couldn’t stand all the debate over details. It all has so little to do with being spiritual! Second, charismatic activities would nonetheless take on a certain order. The “spontaneous” worship services very often had quite a precise order, and someone who came from another charismatic church could get caught by that. This order came from the folks who gravitated into leadership in the charismatic group. Thus politics happened whether people wanted it to happen or not, and whether they thought it was happening or not. The actual difference came in who made the decisions and how.

    Complaining in a church can also, like politics, be anything from a great curse to a great blessing. It’s the church politics that often makes the difference as to which it is. If the various boards, committees, work teams, or whatever you call them are doing their job, church members are complaining to the right people, and those people listen, then it can be a blessing. If people are just complaining to one another, then it’s just gossip, and it will tear the church down. If people complain when things are bad and pass out praise and compliments when things are going well, that is also a blessing. Some people only come out of the woodwork when they are really unhappy.

    My basic point is that church politics will exist. The one thing we can do is try to make it happen in such a way as to build up rather than tear down. In order to make it build up we need to all get involved in some way, we need to graciously call people to account as necessarily, but also provide positive feedback as necessary. We need to take up positions as we are called by God, and try not to miss God’s call because we really don’t want to be in the position.

    Above all we shouldn’t be afraid of an intense, but constructive discussion. Too often we regard a vigorous debate as contrary to church unity. Normally, the failure to carefully examine something simply protects vested interests in the church. Yes, people build little empires in church organization too. Of course, I must add a caveat here too–vigorous debate means constructive vigorous debate in which all are looking for solutions.

    Politics is. Get involved. Make it a blessing.