THOUGHTFULLY DRIVING THE PORCELAIN BUS

A Column by John S Schroeder

June 22, 2002

A couple of weeks ago, I talked about the 'game.' Now I need to talk about the 'post-game news conference.' As I have said, the 'game' is played in the controlling boards of churches. Once a pastor has driven his/her agenda through those bodies so they are, in fact, a "done-deal," is when the 'post-game news conference' comes into play.

Generally, when a pastor feels so driven to implement an agenda that he/she must resort to 'the game,' that agenda will be controversial. 'The game' was, as I have pointed out, designed to control and minimize that controversy in the ruling bodies and get the agenda through with little or no debate. However, once the agenda is passed and word gets out to the congregation it is a little harder to keep a lid on the controversy. While it is true that there is little a congregation in general can do to change what has been passed, they can bitch and moan, shout and scream, and other rather unpleasant things. Even more importantly, they can fail to participate in the new agenda, which can ultimately lead to its failure. So what does a pastor do to mitigate that potential problem?

Well, the pulpit is the most effective tool a pastor has to motivate and activate a congregation, so a pastor usually pushes the agenda by preaching. I have heard such sermons in several different churches and I have heard them done both poorly and well, but the basic theme of such sermons always remains the same.

In the worst such sermon I have ever heard, the pastor simply claimed the guidance of the Holy Spirit and dared anyone to challenge him. This is a very difficult argument to overcome because who can verify the guidance or lack thereof of the Holy Spirit in another person? It is that very question that the Presbyterian founders said could only be answered with votes, figuring that if the Holy Spirit told one person, He would probably tell several. Furthermore, who are mere congregants to question the spiritual authority of a PASTOR? Aren’t pastors supposed to be holier than the rest of us anyway? Aren’t they supposed to spend all that time in the Word and prayer?

The slickest of these sermons I have ever heard was far more insidious. In this slick sermon the pastor played on exactly the themes I often strike in this space. In this slick sermon he established thoroughly and scripturally exactly what I have said over and over, that people and relationships are the most important thing a church can do. Wonderful! - my heart sings to hear such a proclamation from the pulpit. But then he concludes from that statement that we dare not put those relationships at risk by opposing the changes in the church and arguing too profusely or divisively to the contrary.

Both these sermons amount practically to telling the congregation to "Sit Down, Shut Up, and Hold On!" Think about that for a moment and contemplate the temerity, the hubris, and the flat out ego that is required to preach them. In essence what these sermons say is, "I have successfully manipulated the system to achieve my goals, and now you have to accept it. Not only do you have to accept it, I am going to tell you that there is a moral imperative that you accept it."

Now, in all fairness, the 'worst' sermon I mention is so 'in-your-face' that if one falls victim to it, one has only oneself to blame. While it does claim the moral high ground, it is at least a stand up challenge. Only the very weak would buy into such a proposition.

The slick sermon is a different story altogether. It is very difficult to know how to react to this, precisely because it contains so much truth. The problems with the slick sermon lie more in its timing than in its content. If the slick sermon had been preached before the debate in an effort to make the debate better, great -- but to do so after the votes are counted, and in light of 'the game' played to get those votes smacks of spiking the ball after a touchdown. The point of the sermon seems to be civility in debate, and yet the timing of it is highly uncivil.

But here is what really irks me. To claim a moral imperative to play fair, when the fight has not been fairly fought is just flat-out hypocritical. To tell the congregation that relationships are most important, when the pastor has so clearly placed the good of the organization ahead of the good of those in it, renders the telling moot. I do not expect pastors to live up to their sermons, after all they are sinners just like the rest of us, but I do expect a reasonable air of humility in those sermons. I am sorry, but the hermenutical equivalent of a NFL touchdown dance does not carry with it a reasonable air of humility.

There is no question that in the day-to-day mundane routines of running a church, people will agree and disagree. Friendships should be more important than those debates. And scripture is clear on that priority. Civility is of the utmost importance. As I have said before, as Christians, how we do things is more important than what we do. That's a great message -- but to turn it and pervert it to squelch debate and cow opposition is the ultimate denial of that very same message.

In a Presbyterian system no one should resent losing. It happens every day. If there are opposing sides on any vote, one side or the other will lose. If, in a spirit of fairness and seeking God's will, all the information has been presented, that presentation has occurred in a timely fashion, and there has been ample opportunity for complete debate then it really is imperative that the losing side come back into the fold after the vote is taken. That is the spirit of a democratic system. Furthermore, if the system has been used fully one should have the faith that the will of God has been uncovered as best as we are able. But when the system is manipulated, when debate is squelched, when artificial crises are created, and information is withheld it is difficult indeed to lay aside one's opposition.

So what to do? Well, one thing is for sure. I cannot trust anyone who would manipulate a friendship in this fashion. Someone who would play upon friendship to achieve some institutional goal is not truly a friend, except maybe to the institution. So now church is reduced to business, "I don’t like you, but I will do business with you." That is so hollow. "I will worship with you, but I can’t trust you."

I think about that and I think about Jesus and Judas. Jesus knew of Judas betrayal, but sent him on his way to accomplish it. Were Jesus and Judas friends? No, but Judas did play a vital role in accomplishing the ultimate will of God. Did Jesus forgive Judas? I am sure He would have if Judas had asked for it, but he never did.

For the time being, I will take this from the insidious sermon -- friendship no, forgiveness possible, civility, yes, as long as it is offered in return. In several churches now, that seems to be all there is not true friendship, not human relationships that endeavor to imitate the relationships between the Trinity, just civility. That hurts a lot because I would rather be someone's friend. And this is the point where the analogy to Jesus and Judas breaks down; neither myself or the offending pastor have anything to accomplish that could be classified as the saving grace of the world.

With Love,