Letter to a reader
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sometimes it is interesting to compare what gets responses from a Reporter column versus what gets responses on the ol' blog. My post last week on the "Cheating on your church" Reporter column got almost no response from blog readers.
But when the actual column went into the print edition of the Reporter itself, I was inundated with e-mails from readers of the newspaper. As always, some were positive and some were negative. But the difference was that the negative ones were from people who were genuinely upset with me. They perceived the column as threatening, intimidating, or harsh. This was a surprise to me (as it always is when I get that kind of response). My writing is intended to help others think constructively about important issues related to our common faith, and this column was no different.
Nevertheless, I make goofs. And sometimes language I use can be interpreted in ways I did not intend. So in case you read the column and didn't like it, I wanted to offer some explanatory comments. To do that, I will print an excerpt below from a response I sent to one reader's concerns. For the record, this wasn't one of the angry readers, but was rather one who was writing to ask about the implications of switching from one denomination to another. Here's the excerpt:
Dear _______,
... Let me say a bit about why I wrote the column: As a pastor in the UMC, I am concerned about the path our church travels. I want us to be faithful, and I want us to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the needy. Some people have written me concerned with a perceived harshness in tone with this column in particular. Of course, I would never write anything to try to intentionally frighten or intimidate those in the church. I do, however, think it is important to think critically about what church membership means. And I think it is especially important in our current cultural climate, when we are taught to think of ourselves first and foremost as consumers who deserve to have their 'felt needs' met on demand. The way of salvation that Jesus Christ offers us is a far cry from the shallow version of happiness offered by secular culture today. My principle worry about church shopping is that it ingrains the consumerist habits of the secular culture rather than replacing them with the discipleship habits of a follower of Christ.
In addition, we do make vows upon church membership, and those vows need to be taken seriously. My comparison of them with marriage vows was only intended to highlight that fact. In a sense, I wrote the column because of the very high view I have of the role of the church in our salvation: it is where we are taught about Jesus, it is where we hear the Word preached, it is where we receive the Sacraments, it is where we are formed as disciples, and it is where we learn to be in relationships of sisterhood and brotherhood with Jesus' friends. That's all really important stuff!
Thanks again for your letter. I am very happy to hear that you have found a home in the UMC that is nurturing your faith!
Yours in Christ,
Andrew Thompson
But when the actual column went into the print edition of the Reporter itself, I was inundated with e-mails from readers of the newspaper. As always, some were positive and some were negative. But the difference was that the negative ones were from people who were genuinely upset with me. They perceived the column as threatening, intimidating, or harsh. This was a surprise to me (as it always is when I get that kind of response). My writing is intended to help others think constructively about important issues related to our common faith, and this column was no different.
Nevertheless, I make goofs. And sometimes language I use can be interpreted in ways I did not intend. So in case you read the column and didn't like it, I wanted to offer some explanatory comments. To do that, I will print an excerpt below from a response I sent to one reader's concerns. For the record, this wasn't one of the angry readers, but was rather one who was writing to ask about the implications of switching from one denomination to another. Here's the excerpt:
Dear _______,
... Let me say a bit about why I wrote the column: As a pastor in the UMC, I am concerned about the path our church travels. I want us to be faithful, and I want us to proclaim the gospel of salvation to the needy. Some people have written me concerned with a perceived harshness in tone with this column in particular. Of course, I would never write anything to try to intentionally frighten or intimidate those in the church. I do, however, think it is important to think critically about what church membership means. And I think it is especially important in our current cultural climate, when we are taught to think of ourselves first and foremost as consumers who deserve to have their 'felt needs' met on demand. The way of salvation that Jesus Christ offers us is a far cry from the shallow version of happiness offered by secular culture today. My principle worry about church shopping is that it ingrains the consumerist habits of the secular culture rather than replacing them with the discipleship habits of a follower of Christ.
In addition, we do make vows upon church membership, and those vows need to be taken seriously. My comparison of them with marriage vows was only intended to highlight that fact. In a sense, I wrote the column because of the very high view I have of the role of the church in our salvation: it is where we are taught about Jesus, it is where we hear the Word preached, it is where we receive the Sacraments, it is where we are formed as disciples, and it is where we learn to be in relationships of sisterhood and brotherhood with Jesus' friends. That's all really important stuff!
Thanks again for your letter. I am very happy to hear that you have found a home in the UMC that is nurturing your faith!
Yours in Christ,
Andrew Thompson
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 10:58 AM
6 Comments:
I have been very impressed with your blogging and writing over this subject. I, myself, have been a child of running away from a church that has changed and become something other than my preference. And now that I am clergy in the UMC, I am constantly engaged in conversations, and sometimes threats, that if I don't do ministry this way, they will leave.
It puts us in a very awkward position, and often times, I lash back at them for thinking and saying such things. But yet, I have been in there position so many times before, and I am reminded of my ignorance in the subject at that time.
And finding myself sitting in meeting after meeting, hearing the complains and concerns of members of the congregation, I find myself wanting to scream back, saying, "You are not committed enough to this body!!!"
And though I do my best to be sympathetic about it, I am so glad that someone has brought about this subject matter.
At first, when I read your column in the Reporter, I was offended by it. I felt that I was being preached at because I was the one to easily jump out when things don't go my way. But the fact that it is offensive, means it is more impactful and people actually think about it more deeply.
Thank you for posting this and being passionate about it. We need more passion behind our congregation and churches. The staff of any church can only do as much as the church allows them to do.
Curtis
dyingtruthfully.blogspot.com
Curtis,
Thank you for those comments. In my own experience in ministry, I have had similar episodes of frustration with people who have used threats to leave over one issue or another. But then again, I have also often felt like I wanted to leave myself!
I have continued to think about this issue of the language I used in the column and accompanying blog posts. I think I need to continue to work on how to speak out without using language that can be easily perceived as bullying. That is a fine line to walk.
Peace,
Andrew.
Sorry, just got the reporter this week cause Chicago mail is slow. I think it was very harsh, and not at all inviting to newcomers. I lead at a church with other 20- and 30-somethings who left the Catholic or other Protestant churches at one point or another because of just these kind of condescending ultimatums.
It is one thing to encourage commitment, but the reality is that people our age are looking for more than just doing our duty. We are looking for friendship and community, and when we don't find it, we leave. As leaders of the church, we should deal with it, not bemoan it.
Kuz,
Thanks for your comments. It is interesting that, after two explanatory blog posts following the Reporter column, someone would still characterize what I wrote as consisting of "condescending ultimatums." All I know to say is that I was not intending to be either "harsh" or "condescending."
In the critical comments I have received on this particular column, I think there must be a different implied understanding of what real community requires from that which I have tried to articulate. There seems to be, in many of these comments, the supposition that the one's commitment to community should always be trumped by the priority of market-based choice. That, of course, is a staple of American consumer culture. But it is also a priority that I fundamentally reject.
Kuz, you mention that, if a person of our generation does not find friendship and community, he leaves (according, I assume, to that person's felt needs about what those categories entail). As I see it, that is exactly the problem. Authentic community cannot exist so long as its character is dependent on the transitory whims of each individual involved.
- Andrew
I understand your explanations, and appreciate them as an intellectual exercise, but as someone who is helping to grow a church, district and conference, I think that the tone expressed in the column is not welcoming. Real people have whims, they have feelings, and they vote with their feet. And church leaders are trying to attract real people who live in this decade. How can we do better?
Authentic community cannot exist so long as its character is dependent on the transitory whims of each individual involved.
Well, Acts Chapter 2 was a long time ago, wasn't it? Guess we should give up...
Again, thanks for your comments. But again, I'm having a hard time understanding them :)
Perhaps part of the perceived unwelcoming attitude is due to the column's intended audience: "insiders." I assume that most of the folks I reach in the Reporter are committed clergy or laity living and worshiping in local congregations (if only because conference newspapers are just not that exciting to the general reading public!). That is to say, it was not intended as an evangelism platform for reaching the unchurched.
On the other hand, I think moving the concept of church membership toward expecting true catechetical instruction followed by a mature, informed, and Spirit-led commitment is exactly where we need to go. Will some people be turned off by that? Absolutely. But the calling of the gospel has always required much.
As for Acts 2 (and the rest of the early church for that matter), those folks had an understanding of both the Spirit's power and the totality of Christ's call upon one's life. They recognized that joining the body of Christ involved a conscious rejection of the death-dealing practices of the Graeco-Roman world. Just so, the all-consuming materialism and consumerism of our society, which promises much and delivers not at all (and into which our church has largely thrown its lot), is a lifeway that one is called to discard upon becoming a part of Christ's church.
Post a Comment
<< Home