It happens every day in church. There is a situation of some sort where the good of the church has to be weighed against the good of one individual. Sometimes it's trivial -- the wall plaque that was donated by Family X is removed in a remodel and lost, causing that family insult. Sometimes it's important -- the removal of the American flag from the front of the sanctuary to make room for sound equipment, angering the veterans in the church. Sometimes it's personal -- the person who's spouse just died cannot get a counseling appointment with the Pastor because he (or she) has to write the Sunday sermon.

Each of these circumstances seem to require that "the church," usually represented by the Pastor, but sometimes on a committee vote, seemingly "must" cause pain and suffering in an individual, to serve the greater good of the whole. I first really started thinking about this in light of contemporary worship. The deliberate transition from traditional to contemporary worship will, of necessity, result in the rejection of much that the "old timers" hold dear, and they will be hurt by that.

Scripture seems to be full of circumstances where God does precisely what I am discussing, hurts one person for some greater good. Two examples jump immediately to mind. The first is Job. Seemingly, God allows Satan to torture, almost literally, the faithful Job just to settle a bet. A greater good is served by the fact that God wins the bet, and by the fact that the story survives to this day so that all may learn from it -- but what about the cost to Job? The other example is of course Jesus, whom God allowed to be crucified. If I need to explain the greater good from that one, this may not be the column for you, but call me and we will talk about it.

This later example was driven home to me this week by a radio program where two authors were interviewed. Those authors have written a book in which the traditional theology that Christ was crucified for our sins is challenged. Their thinking is that such traditional theology represents God as a child abuser. I have some sympathy with that view, even if I disagree theologically.

You see, here's the thing, if you have ever been the one hurt for the many it can, and probably will, cause you to question the love of God, the love of the church, and the love of those around you. "They profess to love me, how can they hurt me like this?" I know when it happened to me, it shook my faith down to its very foundation. I am one of the lucky ones, my faith survived. There are so many where it does not. Clearly God cares about me more than the church, if that were not true, Jesus would have simply bulldozed the Roman Empire and set up God's empire.

Which brings us to the essential question -- How do I reconcile that fact that God cares about individuals more than institutions, with the fact that He clearly does in some cases cause, or at least allows, pain and suffering in an individual in the interest of some greater good? This question is one of the most vital and important in the church. The answer to that question will give us what we need, so when confronted with situations like those in the first paragraph, we can act appropriately. I think this question lies at the heart of the seeming unpopularity of the church in American life today, we have chosen to hurt the wrong individuals for the wrong greater good under the wrong conditions.

In reviewing the stories of Job and Jesus, I find two conditions that are absolutely necessary to any circumstance where an individual must be hurt for the greater good. The first condition concerns the one to be hurt and the second concerns the one causing the pain.

In both cases, God knew with certainty that the individuals to be hurt were capable of withstanding the pain. That is one of the fortunate things about being God -- you can have absolute insight into the people and future. Now, I can hear many people out there complaining that if that is the case we mere mortals can never do this sort of thing because we do not have such Godly perspective. Well, I will say that we mere mortals must be highly circumspect, perhaps even loath to do such a thing. I think that if we approach the individual that "must" be hurt and we discuss the circumstances with them in advance of actually "pulling the trigger" we can have a great deal of insight into their reactions, and ability to withstand it, and modify our actions accordingly. In fact, in most cases that discussion in and of itself will take away the painful nature of what must be done. In taking the time to seek out someone who may be hurt by an action and discussing it with them, they are affirmed as individuals and their primacy over the institution is asserted. Yes, it takes a lot of time. Yes, it takes a lot of effort. Church leadership is a real burden, what can I say.

The second condition is that both Job and Jesus were fully restored, in fact made better. At the end, Job had double what was taken from him. Jesus was not only resurrected, but also resurrected into a perfect form. Again, the shouts go up, "God is omnipotent, I am not." Again, I do not think this should be an easy thing to accomplish. I do not think we are in the business of hurting people, even if it does serve a greater good. But in most cases we do not take people fortunes or lives from them, the necessary restoration is probably healing a relationship, or finding a plaque -- well within our power.

There will inevitably come a time when the situation will seem to present itself that these conditions cannot be met. This is where the real test of leadership will arise. Do you, Christian leader, have the ability to put aside your agenda for the sake of the individual that will be hurt? Are you willing to adsorb the pain instead of dishing it out? For that is the real example of Jesus. He had a choice of giving pain, or taking it. He chose to take it. Can we do any less?

While in Minnesota this past week we visited the church of my father's heritage, a Missouri Synod Lutheran church with 1600 members. And yet this church only has one pastor, a budget of a mere $600,000 annually, and form that budget supports a K-12 school that operates without benefit of tuition. So why do churches in California with 500 members and million dollar budgets need staffs of 3-5? Hummmmmmmmm?!