DOES EVERYONE FIT??
Does everyone feel comfortable at church? In God's economy then they would. According to his Word, then that's how the church would be. but what about the woman who is a single mom to a 4 year old girl who was sexually abused by her father and now is a chronic masturbator, and the single mom has a sister who is involved in an abusive homosexual relationship - all of the dysfunction stemming from their dysfunctional childhood. What does this single mom say when prayer request time comes? Can she say all this and not have people stare? or back away? or blow it off because its overwhelming? Can she expect others to enter in as Jesus would??
posted by Ann Louise @ 5/15/2008 06:58:00 PM
6 Comments:
Good thoughts-- but I wonder if it's a bit too black-and-white. Should she be able to share these things vulnerably with those in her church? Yes, definitely. Should she share them in a public, open prayer request time? Probably not.
For one thing, not everyone present will have the capacities to know how to handle such information-- and it's not fair to expect every believer to be at the same place with this sort of maturity. Some just won't know what to do with it.
For another, is this the litmus test of whether a church is a good, vulnerability-safe church? That anyone can say the most shocking things in public gatherings and no one is surprised? That a litany of truly awful sins can be announced and no one be embarrassed?
Also, this approach seems to belittle someone who hasn't been exposed to such things, simply because of their innocence. Is that fair? Is the measure of mature Christianity that we have all been exposed to so much sin, of so many varieties, that we have lost our shame?
You're right that Jesus wouldn't shy away from sin like this. But I think the problem with a "what would Jesus do" approach in this kind of circumstance is that we simply can't do everything that Jesus did. And I think there are times when it's okay to be shy of shocking sin and ALSO want to love someone.
I agree with what you said - but I do think that it is important for a church to want to grow to where they can hear hard stuff and not vomit in reaction. This person doesn't come close to sharing in an open forum, but when she is asked in KG what her life is like lately, if she shares even a little of this then people say, "Oh," and keep walking. This in a church that pats itself on the back for being so friendly. Its just something we need to talk about and be aware of and work on. But your points are exactly right also! A person should be able to be shy of shocking sin and also want to love others at the same time!
Brother, I've been thinking a lot more about what you wrote in response to this post. And I think that my initial post WAS a little bit of a let me throw severe pain in your face to see if you can learn to handle it. And that is NOT the best way to teach.
I wonder what is the best way to teach and work toward this? And is it possible? Here's where I'm coming from - I feel like an oddball in my own church; I always have, and I continually wonder if I should move to another church where there are more people like me. More like me means people who are more familiar and comfortable with the deep dark sins of the world. Because then not only would I have more of a base of believers to minister along side of, but I'd be ministered to as well. I think that churches attract people who they are like, and my church attracts people who are not comfortable and familiar with the deep dark sins, and so that's why I am an oddball. But even moreso, with the few at my church who are also oddballs with me, like the woman I mentioned in the initial post, I have the hardest time ever getting others to come alongside them with me. And so then they feel isolated and like an oddball too. So there's the problem. IS the solution to just all go to different churches, or can we make headway toward this, and if we can make headway, how does it occur??
I understand-- and I'm not sure what you're talking about CAN be taught. At least, trying to "teach" it in a traditional way results in a mostly (or only) theoretical and academic exercise. As you observed about a recent attempt, folks who are "taught" this sort of idea-- where they are instructed about how to be, how to act, how to feel-- will take it seriously for a time, but most will quickly revert after the active instruction is gone. Is that really learning?
In reading through The Emotionally Healthy Church recently, I see that Scazerro talks about exactly this: the best way, he says, to help people learn this is to be incarnational with them. If you live this sort of acceptance, love, and healthiness with others, then they will learn how valuable it is to them-- which will eventually lead them to live that way as well.
I think it may be unreasonable to expect EVERYONE to be able to effectively minister in the way you mention. If someone came to you and asked you to serve on the team that oversaw the computer technology in the church office, you'd probably say No-- because you know you wouldn't be very effective there. Does that mean you're less spiritual or insensitive to the needs of the church? Of course not; you just don't have the mental, emotional, or experiential equipment to minister well in that capacity. Likewise, others may be lacking in those ways to minister to the "hurting" (which I use scare-quotes for because of my next point).
I wonder, too, if one of your presuppositions is that there are certain kinds of hurt, pain, or sin that is somehow more "broken"-- and that there are people who are more "broken" in this way-- and these are really the kinds of woundedness you're looking to the church to minister to? In other words: is the sexual abuse victim more broken (or more in need of the love and support of the body) than the guy who's secretly addicted to porn? Is the depressed or suicidal person more wounded than the mother who is overwhelmed by her parenting responsibility? Is the guy who struggles with homosexuality more needy than the workaholic who escapes his failing marriage by working more? I think your church attacts just as many "deep, dark" sinners as any church-- because we're all deep, dark sinners!-- but they may not own it as much as you.
Part of the difficulty is that all of us think OUR struggles are the worst ones around-- and that people who have been wounded as WE have (and who Christ has brought through that pain) are somehow more mature, more spiritual, more healthy than others. Is it right to belittle the struggles of my brother because I haven't struggled that way? Of course not-- but I do it all the time. All of us do. It's almost as if we delight in our own sins in this way-- celebrating how far we fell before Christ pulled us back up! (Shall we sin all the more, that grace might increase?) As we, by grace, grow through that, we prioritize those sins that we struggled above others, as if they are somehow more in need of grace than others.
The gospel finally takes root in this when we see that ALL of us are broken, all are in need of God's grace every second-- whether we know it or not. The folks at your church need to be loved in their brokenness JUST AS MUCH as those who are depressed, abused, or facing sexual struggles-- and just as much as those who are the victims of natural disasters, who are oppressed and imprisoned for their faith, who are aching from the abortions they had performed, who are homeless or impoverished, and those who wrestle with temptation to integrate their former cultic religious practices into their Christianity.
It's always wrong to elevate one sin (or set of sins), or one sinner (or group of sinners), over the others as somehow the more needy group. Wealthy suburbanites need the gospel just as much as inner city folk, and just as much as rural or "rurban" people. And sexual victims and the abused need grace as much as sexual predators, and as much as those whose sexual lives are totally healthy but who fight issues of anger with their children or the greed that drives them to contemplate corporate fraud.
It may or may not be the case that you should change churches to have others who are like-minded. Yes, it's great to have many in your church who share your passions and burdens; but if that's the only reason you would move, then I would second-guess it. Every congregation needs at least a few folks who are burdened for the things you are. While you get frustrated with others in your church for not "getting with it" and finding a burden for wounded hearts, who knows that they aren't frustrated that you don't share their burdens as well? Is it okay with you if others have different burdens, if the ones they have are healthy, biblical things as well?
That said: I think (and I've always thought) that you need to be in a congregation that (at least a component of which) understands your needs and can minister to you. It is very unhealthy for you to have substantial areas of your life that are relatively untouched by the ministry (or ministries) of the church where you are a member. If your church isn't able to serve you as you need to be served, then you're not really functioning as a true member.
Well I can address your questions about categorizing sin pretty easily. I didn't mean at all to categorize sins. But I see a difference in two ways.
One possible difference in someone who has been abused or is trying to break an addiction because they have to face their sin to change. Its the difference between the person who has realized that they are broken vs. the person who has still been able to hide the fact that they are broken. I think that if there are predominently people who don't believe or live like they are broken then that's when we have a hard time reaching out to others who are broken. I think most people need to constantly be more aware of how broken they are. This creates more of an atmosphere of safety in being broken. And often I get the impression that people who are living in the shocking sins have more of an awareness of their brokenness.
The second thing is that there is a difference when someone ministers to the person who has had surgery, and the person who is dealing with healing from rape. The latter will be much longer and much more messy.
So those are the ways in which I was thinking when I talked about the differences in viewing the sin of the world.
AL,
I have always been a little confused about the passage in Luke where Jesus tells the people that he who has been forgive little, loves little. Maybe Ed can shed some light on it, but I think it must in some measure mean the converse of the person who has lived a REALLY cruddy life and experienced God's forgiveness would be more inclinded to passionately love others in their sin because they know how cruddy they were when Christ loved them. But if you haven't been forgiven of much, you aren't likely to love much. But I think the bigger point is that none of us has been forgiven just a little bit. We have all, if we have come to know Jesus been forgiven hugely and thus ought to love hugely. Do we? Not always. Why? I don't - as many different reasons as there are people who aren't loving.
That being said, however, I think you under estimate the degree of sin and hurt in our church - and the level of brokenness. I have known women just as torn by their inability to love their mother-in-law and the woman who has lived under the abuse of an alcoholic father. But even there there are two different categories - acting sinfully and being sinned against - knowing of course that being sinned against almost always results in the victim acting sinfully as he/she attempts to cope.
But I don't know that you can say that the rape recovery path is easier than the surgery recovery path. The people are different. What if the surgery is a woman who was forced to have a hysterectomy because she continued to develop cancers and would likely soon die if they didn't remove the source of the cancer producing organ? She is 23 and always dreamed of having children and never will. Her body is sent into early menopause and her mood and to some degree her personality changes it it puts an enormous strain on her marriage to the point that her husband feels like he doesn't know her anymore and may not want to stay married. That can be an awfully long and messy road as well.
I think we have to quantify a bit more what it means to be broken. Can it just be internal and personal between you and the Holy Spirit? Does it have to be public to be real? Do all sins need to be shared for the benefit of the Body - or can some sharing actually be harmful to the Body (I appreciated some of Ed's comments on this.)
What do you think about this - I could be way off - but...I recognize something in you that I have struggled with. I have this ideal about things and I seem to be more aware of when it isn't being met than when it is. I know you have this desire for the church to be more open and vulnerable, but what do you invision that looking like and is it an accurate vision of what Scripture calls us to? I'm not saying that it isn't, but I am asking you to know wha tyou are looking for. Because I see a lot of brokenness in our church. I spent time with a woman recently who wept in her struggle with sin and discouragement. Does she need to weep in front of everyone for her brokenness to be legitimate and helpful for the Body, or is the privacy and trust of one person okay? I think this kind of thing is happening all over our church - we just don't know about it all. And I think that is okay. What do you think?
p.s. I have wanted to respond to your post about the retreat - good thoughts - I had some similar observations. I just haven't had the time to sit and type it out. Maybe soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home