Being a Lightning Rod
This is one of those posts that make no sense to those of you outside the "loop" of people familiar with GCM and Evergreen, so I apologize for its esoteric nature, and would recommend that you click on REALLY SMART GUYS for today's enlightenment and entertainment. Or go somewhere like engrish.com and have some fun.
A friend of mine, who happens to be a pastor at Evergreen, has asked that I remove the portion of my series of posts on The Church that had to do specifically with our reasons for leaving that organization. The content he was already aware of. All of the facts of our journey out of the group and my analysis had been expressed to him before we left. He found it "divisive" and "damaging" I think, by the very fact of its existence in a public space such as a blog.
And so, I suppose I'm torn between two reactions.
On one hand, that post says exactly what I think, and what has needed to be said. I've had lots of corroborating, encouraging responses to it, mostly via email. Several people have thanked me for posting it, some with great passion. I am no longer a part of the group and obviously have no obligation to edit the content of my blog based on their leaders' wishes. I think they know that the message of it still needs to be engaged—hoping to silence the messenger will not be enough. I don't believe members need to be protected from difficult questions about their church. They ought to be free to read, question, debate and discuss ideas and teaching that come from within or without the local congregation—with the Word of God as their final authority. I would encourage Evergreen members to boldly question anything you need to. Hold the organization's feet to the fire on what they think about the nature of human authority in a church, the nature of the Body of Christ, their own history and practices as an organization. Don't settle for pat answers or question-avoidance techniques, or ad hominem dismissal of critics. That is not slander or divisiveness, that is the freedom and duty of the believer in action.
On the other hand, I'm sensitive to the need to "as much as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" and I have no stomach for becoming either a prosecutor of that organization or a perpetual lightning rod for controversy regarding them. It could be argued that ECC leaders know—and most others who know me, probably now know what I think. (The post in question was made in mid-June '06.) And of course I have a number of Evergreen friends (including the afore-mentioned pastor) who feel, understandably I guess, implicated and embarrassed by what I had to say about the group to which they belong. Some of us still see each other and work together in non-church contexts, and those relationships are important.
So what to do? I'm asking God...I'm asking people I trust...I'm asking my readers...what do you think?
My temporary solution is this:
In the interest of peace, and in deference to my friend, I have taken down the ECC/GCM portion of my "Church" posts from this public space while I think, pray and consult more.
In the interest of truth and open debate, anybody who wants to hear or read my perspective can contact me directly.
And thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion thus far for supporting this blog. Some of you are amazingly unafraid of the lightning rod role.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
While I don't think there is any need to take down your blog, I can respect the decision to do so and the reasoning behind it.
To call what you wrote "divisive" and "slander" is a statement that lies somewhere between the ludicrous and asinine.
So this is how all those GCM blogs get removed. I suspected that the bloggers were asked to remove their posts, but I wasn't sure exactly how it happened. In your case it was a personal request. And now, here is a personal request to keep that information up. This is America!!! (Plus, I think you are right)
Here's my two cents:
1. If you truly believe that someone is misrepresenting the cause of Christ to young impressionable non-believers or believers, then by all means keep your blog up.
2. When we joined GCM years ago, there was a little feeling inside that didn't sit right with what I knew about Christianity so far. I ignored it for 8 years. If my husband and I would have had the history and problems before us then, we would have joined a different church and wouldn't have the regret and issues to deal with now.
3. If this is damaging to them... they are much weaker in their position than they claim to be. If God is on their side, then they should not be afraid of a few words written by a guy on an honest search for truth.
4. You can still be "for" GCM while writing criticisms of it. In fact, if we want GCM to change for the better, there is no other way to change it than to confront it with the truth. GCM has many things going for it. They should be willing to admit that after the apology was written in the early 90's, similar things keep happening. This is very important. I KNOW that there are leaders... high leaders... who agree with me.
5. Seminary is GOOD. Seminary is GOOD. Seminary is GOOD.
6. Please do not remove your posts. I had such a sinking feeling when I read that you had. I know it is your blog, but, wow... it was so encouraging to read that others feel like we do.
7. When we left GCM, it was good to have everything out in the light. Now people know where you stand. It sounds to me like you want to get closer to orthodox Christianity (with a small "o"-- not to be confused with Orthodox Christianity with a big "O"-- this is the church we now are members of)and so have many, many Christians throughout the ages. This IS an honorable quest. It is your journey... not theirs and by all means... keep YOUR journey as public as you wish it to be. It may actually help others.
Anyway, whatever you decide, remember that in Christ there is freedom. Two years from now, if you do go to seminary (which I am not sure what you were planning. I don't know you, after all) you may feel much differently. You may even wonder why it was such a big deal to post what you had in the first place. It wasn't defamatory. Heck, it wasn't even mean. It was the nicest refutation of a church's beliefs that I have ever read. So, leave it up, already! :)
Just thought people might want to know that the post you removed was part of a series you did on The Church (the one with the big C) and that series minus the afore-mentioned post is still in your archives from June.
Now I am going to engrish.com
You must have been wondering why I kept mentioning seminary in my comments on your blog... that's cause I was getting you confused with another former member who is planning on attending seminary... and I guess with all of your postings about church history etc... I thought that was you. I just went back through my big Word document where I keep my cache of the formere gcmwarning.com and ooops. Wrong person.
That being said, I do appreciate the connections you have made to Christianity through the ages. This is, in my opinion, true unity.
Remembering those Christians who have gone before us... some of them strong even against death and persecution... this is true unity.
Unity is not necessarily all that effective on a small scale in a small organization that has existed only NOW. Unity is way more "unified" if it includes the large body of believers we have in this world. The unity of the entire body of Christ. So when I see someone who is pursuing more of a uniformity of beliefs... or pursuing beliefs that are more in line with what a larger majority of Christians believe, I think this person really is seeking unity on a larger, perhaps more fulfilling, and effective scale.
Also, if people have said that your blog is slander... this cannot be true.
1. Slander must be spoken. Libel is written.
2. Libel and Slander must be untrue, at least according to the legal definition. (I did learn a teensy bit in law school... not much though :))
3. A matter of opinion is usually viewed as a truth.
I am sorry that I keep posting on your blog, but I just cannot help myself. It breaks my heart to see what you and your family are going through on this, because I have been there.
Holly's comment reminds me of two things.
First, the Church (with a big C) is made up of all Christians who are living AND all who have gone before us.
That is an intersting point to ponder and it brings me to a second point which is that we can benefit from the gifts God has given all believers--even those who have been dead for hundreds of years.
And that thought takes me to this C. S. Lewis quote from The Essential C.S. Lewis, Quotes from the 'Mere Christian.'
What's Old Is New
"The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity ('mere Christianity' as [Puritan pastor Richard] Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
"Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books."
--"On the Reading of Old Books"
Hi Dad, Thanks for your willingness to openly share those convictions in a loving way. Thanks for your willingness to go the extra mile to keep the peace. I've watched you handle this whole situation with humility, grace and wisdom and we have much respect for you! Love you!
I don't really have anything to add, just that I enjoy your insight, thoroughness, and integrity. Your actions and reasoning in regard to the letter you got show that there is no malice or ill-will behind the posts. And that, more than any theological exposition, shows where your heart is.
I think the ECC pastors who had a problem with your post because they decided to take personal offense at your choice of the phrase "corporate pride" should go to the gcmwarning.com web site (it's back up) and reread their 1991 statement of error and apology again (it's in the resources category). That's exactly how they (the GCAC people) categorized the same issues 15 years ago.
In their apology, Roman Numeral I is "Prideful Attitude" and the sub-categories under it are 1. Improper response to criticism and 2. An elitist attitude. Those are their words.
Also, those pastors who say criticizing the organization is the same as criticizing them personally (can't separate the sum from the parts type thinking) should go to the rickross.com web site and read #2 under "Warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader" where it says:
#2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separte categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
I'm sorry you took your post down, but I understand why you did it...to be as peace as far as it depended on you.
Too bad it didn't work.
"...criticizing the organization is the same as criticizing them personally."
The inability to finally distinguish between between criticism of a group to which I belong and criticism of myself as a person is a phenomenon worth noting. While everybody bristles a little at the suggestion that maybe they weren't wise or perceptive in the choice of what organizations to join, most are able to move beyond emotion to a little more objectivity.
As to the question of whether a group can maintain a culture, or personality, or "pride" that is not fully represented by any individual, you don't need to look very far to see evidence that it can. Think about government agencies. It is reasonable to assume that the various branches are staffed by a fairly typical cross-section of personality types, and yet these places are legendary (with some exceptions, thankfully) for the less than respectful treatment we've come to expect there. Why? A foundation was established and over time a culture developed, with tangible and intangible factors tending to produce a certain corporate character. Some of it is structural; no marketplace competition thus no need for good customer relations, inadequate standards/training/management, job tenure. Some of it is just habit and tradition. Otherwise normal people "pick up" ways of thinking about and handling people in the waiting room as they learn the ropes of their jobs. Their neighbors might notice quite a different atmosphere at the county desk than at the backyard fence. The individual officer's mistake is either wittingly or unwittingly participating in the perpetuation of the corporate ethos. Many refuse and are the bright spots in otherwise gloomy agencies.
When structures change for the better, the intangibles tend to follow. Witness the Post Office. Federal regulations changed, the windows of competition opened, and the "air quality" improved in our local branches. You used to hope that you got an agent who wasn't grumpy, now they're all pretty nice and helpful.
I don't know how to help the license offices!
A limited analogy and a long way of saying that it is indeed possible to have a corporate character with a kind of life of it's own, and that if it is to change, it will involve the examination of foundational assumptions and structural integrity as well as personal integrity.
Sometimes I think this whole episode is just really odd.
I hope GCM realizes it's as damaging to their reputation when they force people to take things down like this than if they were to just let them stay up. They're just confirming what others are saying about the group's problems.
Just to complete the circle of this discussion—as of 12/28/06 the original post in question is back up where it was...content unedited, with some notes at the beginning.
Post a Comment