Something I’m finding frustrating about the church right now is that it doesn’t allow for change… neither institutional or personal. But that is always the problem with change. For instance: the church might talk about change, but doesn’t admit the impossibility of doing it. I might talk about personal change, but won’t recognize the impossibility of doing it.
That’s the problem with change: who is the changer, and who is the changed? When I say to myself: I’m going to change myself! I have to recognize how impossible a statement that is. Who is the “self” that I say I’m going to change? And who is the “I” that says he is going to change the self? They are, indeed, one and the same. Which leads me to conclude that in the end what we are masters at is modification, not true change or transformation.
I have lots of friends who’ve left the church because when change has come upon them, they feel they no longer fit. Even though the church preaches change, it really doesn’t allow for it. Because the first step to change is death, death to the self. Which means doubts and questions. And the church, as we all know, is extremely uncomfortable with doubts and questions. So vamoose! They’re gone. If only they’d renovated themselves, for the church loves modification because the person most often modifies to compromise to expectations and values of the church.
Even though we might not agree completely with James W. Fowler’s Stages of Faith, let’s take a look at one of his attempts to describe Stage 5 level of faith:
Stage 5 accepts as axiomatic that truth is more multidimensional and organically interdependent that most theories or accounts of truth can grasp. Religiously, it knows that the symbols, stories, doctrines and liturgies offered by its own traditions are inevitably partial, limited to a particular people’s experience of God and incomplete. Stage 5 also sees, however, that the relativity of religious traditions that matters is not their relativity to each other, but their relativity– their relate-ivity– to the reality to which they mediate relation. Conjunctive faith, therefore, is ready for significant encounters with others traditions than its own, expecting that truth has disclosed itself in those traditions in ways that may complement or correct its own.
How can someone, say, develop from Stage 2 to 3, or 3 to 4, or 4 to 5, in an evangelical, conservative, or fundamentalist church? It is nearly impossible! I have lots of friends who have come to some kind of a perception of the previous quote, and the church is unable or unwilling to provide a safe place for such people. They feel like they no longer belong and must move on. Some even understand themselves as backsliders and they have no choice but to live out their own curse with integrity. That’s been my observation anyway.
Contributions to nakedpastor are greatly appreciated.
65 Comments
Trackbacks
- Sausage « City of God
- Stages of Faith « tangence: (n.) …
- Why I Skipped Church Today | Confessing My Dad Attitude
David Hayward is a pastor artistically stripping to the essential.
Tiggy – “Well you’re generalising as well. It’s not really anything to do with written statements of doctrine, but with conformity. My experiences in many churches has been the same as Lynn’s. If you don’t use the right language or go along with the theology that’s taught there, then you are considered dubious. It’s the same with most groups, but with the added problem that with a church, they get to demonise you in a rather more literal way and it’s the whole of your being that’s called into question because it’s seen to relate to your relationship with God.”
Nope. My present experience is the opposite of that. Sorry that I don’t conform to your generalization. Hope you don’t demonize me for it.
Fred,
I’m truly glad you are having a positive experience in your church. Do you think it’s because of the denomination or the people?
If you said “I’m not sure I believe any of this stuff anymore” would you be asked to explain further and get some true respect and empathy or interest? OR would you be politely reminded (with a smile) about church discipline, finding a place more in line with your beliefs, told to pray that the Holy Spirit would help you understand the Bible, and given an apologetics book to read? Would you be told (with a smile) that if you stop coming to church that the devil will have you?
The above happened to me. I have no hard feelings against the people, and I do know they wish me well and probably miss me at least a tiny bit. But they also probably think “the devil has me.” That makes me feel lousy.
Any thoughts?
Fred, I never assumed that your experience did conform to my generalisation. We are all generalising. I am talking about churches I’ve experienced and you are talking about churches or a church that you’ve experienced. There’s not really any other way to do it.
What do you mean by ‘the opposite of that’?
Lynn,
There is a lot wrong with churches. It is by no means perfect. It is, however, where someone feels safe to come after being told that she was no longer welcome in her previous church having become pregnant out of wedlock. I also know that there are quite a few coming that don’t hold to “orthodox Christian beliefs.” I know there are a great many that would disagree with many of our beliefs.
We have only rarely seen the exercise of “church discipline” and I believe that in none of those cases was it about what “people believed.”
Is it the denomination or the people? It’s absolutely the people. I think we’re really not the norm in the denomination. The denomination is a good place for us to be right now, but we don’t exactly “toe the line.” I’m quite confident too that most people in our church aren’t aware of our denomination’s “Statement of Fundamental Truths” or whatever, and that doesn’t really bother me.
Tiggy,
What do I mean by “the opposite of that”? I mean that in my church people are not demonized because they believe differently. We’ve had a few attending fairly regularly who question a lot of what “they grew up believing.” We have people from agnostic or atheist backgrounds who come regularly to enjoy the service but don’t conform to “what we believe.” Sometimes I wonder why they come, but they’re certainly welcome.
Fred,
Your church sounds very nice. There should be more like it.
Mm, do you not think your church is unusual though? I find some higher Anglican churches here are like t hat, but I’ve grown up in ‘low’ Anglican churches that became increasingly Evangelical in their theology as time went on and there wasn’t the same freedom to think and question and explore. For me, it mirrored the culture of the time, as it went from ’70s emphasis on community and freedomto explore, to ’80s emphasis on power and certainty – akin to the ‘conviction’ politics of Thatcher. Also increased individualism.
Well, our church is quite “evangelical” but I think a couple of things characterize our church:
1) An awareness that we can’t “make someone else believe something.”
2) An unhappiness for many with previous church experience–people with a fair amount of pain and baggage, and with that an understanding that acceptance is more important than conformity.
Certainly in the leadership of the church there is some pretty orthodox agreement, but attendance, involvement, and even belonging are not predicated on affirming certain beliefs–not even belief in the existence of God.
Cool. Maybe it’s starting to become more common, but I still think it’s unusual among Evangelical churches.
I get nervous at my church because it’s a one of a kind sort of place, not part of a denomination, though it does have working links with some other churches. I don’t know if I’m going to get squashed or not and it may depend on the individual I’m talking to. I haven’t been for a few weeks because I’ve had some stress and I didn’t feel I could cope with any conflict there might be between what I believe and what people there believe – though I’m sure that isn’t homogenous – and didn’t want to feel any subsequent alienation. I went to my ‘Discipleship Group’ for the first time in weeks and managed to get into an argument about Israel and Palestine, which I was far too stressed to articulate. There’s a lot I really love about my church, but I’m still fearful of being perceived negatively; probably because of past experiences.
Very interesting discussion. I’ve concluded the more conservative churches are big on correct doctrine. The more liberal churches focus more on people and their problems and a loving God. You can certainly come up with both approaches by using the Bible. Just avoid those parts of the Bible that don’t mesh with your approach.
I actually asked in my very small caregroup-”Has the church ever taken a survey of what people actually believe?” He said (and he is an elder) that he wouldn’t really need to know that. That said to me “We have no interest in what you in particular believe. We are interested in our official beliefs and think they are the truth.” Well, I guess that was fine, but it left me wondering why in the heck I would keep coming when it wasn’t about me in any way. It was about people towing the line doctrinally and keeping their opinions to themselves.
Since I was going mainly to connect with people and discuss it all, that didn’t work for me. Sure I grew up in it and was very familiar with it all, yet it wasn’t working for me, and no one showed the slightest interest in getting inside my head and respecting my thoughts. That hurt.
I’m not saying they did anything wrong, just that it was a hurtful experience for me and showed me where they were coming from. It all comes back to-you are “in” if you believe what they believe. If you don’t believe what they believe, they don’t want to hear about it.
That’s interesting, Lynn. I am interested in what people believe, and I’m under no illusion that they would/should believe exactly what I believe. Sometimes I avoid asking because I tend to be argumentative, but my argument isn’t necessarily to change someone else’s point of view; sometimes I argue just for the sake of arguing, but others wouldn’t recognize that.
‘my argument isn’t necessarily to change someone else’s point of view; sometimes I argue just for the sake of arguing’
LOL, Fred, you make it sound like that’s more noble!
“Arguing for the sake of arguing” is how I process stuff. There are people I argue with regularly because we would both enjoy the interaction and we might both learn something.
And there are people I won’t argue with because it won’t benefit anyone.
I think that’s more noble than arguing for the sole purpose of changing someone else’s point of view.
Fred,
I understand what you’re saying. Some people are safe-you can just be yourself and have a back and forth. Others are not safe-you know not to mess with them cause you’ll only feel hurt if you do.
Lynn,
Not quite. If I mess with others, there’s a better chance that I’ll hurt them than that they’ll hurt me (at least, when it comes to arguing).
Fred,
Oh, okay. Got it.