I had a comment on this blog a few weeks ago which got me thinking. The comment was:“Seriously, instead of talking/bitching about the shortcomings of the institution (of which there are obviously many, but that’s not the point) why not find a place that’s already doing something about it and tag along for the ride. I can think of a couple places in Cape Town that already doing just what you say the church never does. Open your eyes to the practical solutions that are out there instead of just talking about it constantly. You’ve spent a f***ing long time complaining about stuff, now just get off your ass and find someone who’s doing some good stuff and get behind it.”
I hear what this guy is saying about being a practical part of the solution, and I agree. But what is this irrational fearing of criticism?
I’ve been sick for the past couple of weeks with flu so most days have found me curled up under a sleeping bag on my couch amidst a sea of used tissues. Fortunately I was armed with the complete fourth season of Boston Legal to distract me from the fact that my head was pounding and I couldn’t breath.
I’m a huge fan of Boston Legal. I think it’s one of the best written shows on TV.
If you’ve seen the show you’ll know the whole thing pivots on the relationship between Denny Crane and Alan Shore. Denny Crane is a gun toting, right wing conservative who follows his country without questioning anything. He is patriotic to a fault. His friend Alan Shore is a dissident, always more than ready to challenge the system and fight the impossible fight, and I would argue that he is also patriotic to a fault.
Denny will criticize Alan for, ‘questioning America, especially in a time of war.’
Alan will invariably retort that ‘questioning your country is often the most patriotic thing you can do.’
Denny points out that he loves America and wouldn’t change a thing.
Alan points out that he loves America too much to allow it to be less than it should be.
The brilliance of this plot device is that it allows the writers of the show to explore the issues America is dealing with as a society through these two polar opposites. Most episodes see these two men come to loggerheads over some issue where Denny represents the views of the conservative right and Alan represents the challenge of the liberal left.
But the poignance of the whole series is that at the end of each day they retire to the balcony and share a cigar together as friends, safe in the knowledge that, despite their differences, they actually do want the same thing; for America to be the best it can be.
Watching this dynamic played out I couldn’t help but see the obvious parallel this has with the church. There is an ever-rising tide of dissidents like me out there who refuse to just go to church and shut up. We know there should be more. We can see the gaping holes in the way we move about in the world, and we won’t shut up about it. Not because we hate church, quite the opposite. Like Alan we will receive criticism, we will be labelled ‘disloyal heretics’, but we won’t keep quiet because we believe that, ‘questioning things is actually the most loyal thing we can do.’
Alan also points out in the series that America was born from questioning the institution and, ultimately, open rebellion. The founding fathers were the ultimate dissidents. Similarly, we shouldn’t forget our own history; it’s littered with those who questioned.
The prophets challenged the priests and kings when they were off the map.
Jesus challenged the religious leaders because their heavy religion was keeping people from God.
The desert fathers challenged the bishops of their day for making the wrong things important.
They retreated to caves in the desert to practice simple spirituality again.
The pacifists challenged the Crusaders when they went off to slaughter thousands of Muslim for God.
The reformers challenged the Papacy when it was creating ever more colourful ways to control the populace and extract money from them.
Church history is refreshed regularly by these prophetic voices who aren’t shy to point out the often gaping holes. It seems that if we have the health of the church in mind we are duty bound to regularly ask ourselves the tough questions.
Now I know that the institutional church hates criticism, because it’s manned by the conservatives: ie. those who have given themselves the work of conserving and keeping things the same, and it’s seen as disloyal to the idea of church, even disloyal to God to question the status quo. At best this a very narrow minded view which ignores the context of our history, and at worst it’s brain washing. And it’s nothing new: Freud, in his day, said, “the church trains it’s young people to only ask the questions it can answer”. Well perhaps it’s time we looked at the ones we’re not prepared to answer out of a genuine desire to be better church.
I am also aware that there is a terrible fear of negativism in South African culture, like criticizing something is the worst social offense. I have lost friends because I’ve insisted on being the one who asks the questions. We don’t like people who ‘complain’ about the things we love to the point where we will often write them off before we even hear what they have to say. But the prophets moaned, the reformers moaned, the pacifists moaned, even Jesus moaned. Would we have ignored them if they came around today? I believe so. I believe we do. All because it’s not cool to complain. It’s disloyal and ugly.
I don’t believe we will fix the problems in our churches until we acknowledge that there are problems, and saying, “Of course there are Sean, we’re human beings”, and then carrying on the same way, doesn’t count! If we know we have problems, if we know we are off the map then we have to map the sacrifices and get back on track. But it starts with listening to the dissidents and not just writing them off. They could be more than ‘the negative idiot in your midst’, they could be the prophet in your town.
To be honest this comment stayed with me because I have one chapter to go in this book I’m writing, and I’m nervous. I know much of this stuff is ‘criticism’, but I do feel like it’s because I care. Why on earth would I write it otherwise? The insecure part of me is scared of being written off by the fearful conservatives but the true part of me can do no other. I have to add my voice and hope it gets heard and makes some kind of difference.
I feel like Alan Shore standing in a court room trying to convince the judge that we can do better, and then having to convince his friend at the end of the day that he still loves the thing he questions, in fact that’s why he has to do it. I suppose my sincere hope is that even if you don’t agree with me, which is fine, that we could still be civil to one another and perhaps share a cigar every now and again and agree that we want the same thing: the church to be effective again.
what you need is some balls, a shotgun, and a dwarf to massage you in the bath.
Denny Crane!
Interesting. I must say, as someone who is very much working my little Baptist a*s off in a very standard, institutional church, I sympathise with the dude who swore at you in the beginning. I wouldn’t classify myself as a dissident, but neither would I like to be labelled a ‘fearful conservative’. I have a lot of time to listen to the voices emerging (there’s that naughty word again) from the fringes of Christendom, on one proviso – they are commited to see the Church at its best! We have some dissident voices in our local community, young men and young in their faith, who are constantly challenging and criticising what we do as a local church. Their points are not wrong at all, and its not a secret that the church is far from perfect. But what makes their criticism totally useless is that they have not earned the right to speak into our community yet – they’ve never been through the process of humbling themselves and serving, and pouring their lives into what the church IS doing (as imperfect as that may be). Its one thing listening to someone who’s given church their best, and tried to see it from both sides, and walked in the shoes of the established leaders for a time, who then pours out their heart in frustration at how far we’ve fallen short (God knows I’ve been there too). What I can’t stomach is the naive, cocky dissident who criticises in ignorance and arrogance, implying that the local church is ultimately beneath him.
Summary: we need the voices from the fringe, but they also need to earn the right to be heard.
Hey Duncs…
Shot for interacting.
I’d say a couple of things, firstly that I’m not really talking about people who just like to moan. “What I can’t stomach is the naive, cocky dissident who criticises in ignorance and arrogance, implying that the local church is ultimately beneath him.” I couldn’t agree more. I think we can sift out those who just feel the need to gripe because they don’t get their way, or out of some felt need to throw their weight around. But I would also say that many prophets are born this way and maybe we need to give them the time to be heard and ask them what they suggest. I know the frustrations of working in a church and being criticized to the point of wondering if you can do anything right any more, but I still think we need to fine tune the skill of hearing where God may be speaking through criticism instead of writing of all complaints, which I’m sure knowing you, you don’t do.
The second thing I would say is that “getting involved before you criticize” just sounds like a party line. It’s used all over. Why do people have to earn the right to speak? We’re not talking about ‘the church’ as being the local church, or even the Baptist denomination in your case, we are talking about THE CHURCH. To say that someone cannot speak out when they see issues in the way we do things until they have joined in at ‘my local church’ and submitted to the very institution they have issues with is crazy to me. It’s been really interesting writing from this vantage point because for the first time since high school I am not surrounded by people who think the same, and believe me the big wide world is full of people who won’t go back to local churches. Most of them love God and seek to follow Him still but they will not join your church before they are allowed to honestly vent their frustrations, and I have come to see that the church, and THE CHURCH ignore these people at their peril. I see the distinct possibility that with this policy we will oust everyone who speaks out against because the only option we leave them is to shut up and submit to the institution anyway. To many I have spoken to that feels like a cyclical trap.
I know I am speaking from a broader context than your own and I remember what it was like putting up with people who just felt the need to be against everything but I think we have to sift and keep listening. Their right to speak should not be conditional on them playing nice. The prophets didn’t join the system and shut up. Neither did Jesus. Perhaps we need broader shoulders.
Keep up the good work. I mean it! Shrug off those who just feel the need to complain but maybe keep listening for the uncomfortable challenge of God in it all too. You know the difference.
Dude, by the way, super-keen for a cigar some time. I’ll get hold of you when I’m down in the fairest Cape!
p.s. i’ll never forget that you stole my couches.
I would love that! I may be up in your neck of the woods for June actually so it would be great to hook up then. I am amped to meet your little one.
Peace bro.
PS Those couches have given me many a blissful afternoon sleep:)
Thanks Seano,
Point taken – voices from the fringe are often right, even when they are rude! But to clarify the idea of ‘getting involved’ – I don’t necessarily mean joining a cell group and working your way up (or down) the heirarchy until you arrive at deaconship (or whatever)… I mean a subtle change of mindset, which will ultimately start changing the way you speak from saying things like, ‘The church should do this’ or ‘you guys are falling short’ to ‘we should be doing this’ or ‘my church (or Church) is falling short’! The question is whether or not you hope your criticism will make a difference or not, and I submit that those who choose to place themselves outside of the Church and criticise from a difference are not going to be prophetic history makers, EVEN IF their criticism is valid! But the voice that cries out for change from within the Church (even if its right on the fringe / cutting edge) is historically the one that proves effective, and eventually gets the attention of the entire Body (usually only after they die, so don’t hold your breath!)
Later Bro
Jesus loves u all