Faux rescues
A church in my neck of the woods recently experienced an explosive, very-public tectonic break. To call it merely a "church split" would to be to condemn with faint praise. Everybody has an opinion about it, so it seems, and mine--from an outsider's perspective--was that the now-former pastor made some poor choices, which came back to bite him. After the dust settled, one of my thoughts was that the church where my family and I attend and participate was blessed, in that the same thing couldn't happen here.
Or so I thought.
Some of the same precursors are manifesting themselves even as I type. An "anti" website has formed, along with an accompanying blog; slurs, accusations, and half-truths are flying like weapons in a John Woo movie. From the perspective of someone who isn't exactly an "outsider" this time, the accusations are hyperbolic, and the slurs and half-truths are embarrassing. Professing Christians who don't like someone's salary, management style, or worship style wrap themselves in both anonymity and righteous indignation while referring to church staff as "cowards" or "the mafia."
Here's a tip our church's former pastor used as a rule of thumb: If you can't sign your name, your criticisms mean nothing.
--Mike
EDIT: Let me clarify something. Not for a second do I believe that my current pastor has behaved in the same fashion as the pastor who precipitated the earthquake at his church. Quite to the contrary--I wonder just how reserved I would be were I to receive the same level of unfortunate, misguided commentary he's had to deal with in recent weeks.
EDITED WAY AFTER THE FACT TO ADD: After receiving a letter from someone affiliated with Germantown Baptist, I do see where the phrase "precipitated the earthquake" could be perceived as an indictment of sorts against Pastor Shaw, and for that I apologize to anyone affiliated with GBC who was injured by my imprecise remark. Very often people with the best of intentions set off a chain of events they did not anticipate, and did not desire. No doubt such was the case at Germantown, and may even have been the case at Bellevue.
7 comments:
Interesteing to see your take on the earthquake @ GBC. Your assessment of the former pastor and his actions is on the mark. I am glad he is gone. Also very thankful for all BBC has done to help GBC thru all of this mess.
Some people are grumbling that we are turning into BBC south. I don't think so. Two different churches with different personalities that share a similar mission.
I hope the storm at BBC blows over and you guys are back to normal very soon.
What did Sam & Steve do wrong/right?
What was proven/admitted that they did wrong/right?
What did SaveGBC and SavingBellevue do wrong/right?
What was proven/admitted that they did wrong/right?
I don't understand if this is about Rick Warren: Adrian used PDC as did Sam. I don't believe elders was the issue, or the bylaws. Was it pure pew politics in both cases?
I see that you prefer not to blog anonymously; I respect your courage and sense of integrity in using your own name. I can't compete with that. At the same time, I don't think anonymous blogging, alone, has the ability to split churches.
I sincerely am confused and hurt about what is going on.
A lot of people are.
I ask you because you seem like a knowledgable person, and I desire to be edified.
If I may be so bold, the GBC issues is in the history books, but is still recent-enough history that post-event analysis might be injurious to many people.
With regard to Bellevue, however, the problems began in earnest at some point in the midst of the whispering campaign, when Biblical guidelines were breached and the matter was made public at good ol' savingbellevue.com. It became almost fashionable to hide behind cute pseudonyms and sling brickbats at Bellevue leadership--except for those who preferred to further exacerbate the breach by granting interviews.
I appreciate your kind words, but I will disagree with one statement you made, if I might. While anonymous blogging might not be overly damaging in and of itself, the anti-Bellevue motivation behind those who, for the most part, try do do their damage from the shadows has the potential to be an impediment to the work of Bellevue in the service of Christ.
Has any of this surprised God?
No.
Will He use this for His glory and the benefit of those of us who are His children?
Yes.
That is what we should focus upon.
--Mike
When you say...
"With regard to ______, however, the problems began in earnest at some point in the midst of the whispering campaign, when Biblical guidelines were breached and the matter was made public at good ol' ____.com. It became almost fashionable to hide behind cute pseudonyms and sling brickbats at ______ leadership--except for those who preferred to further exacerbate the breach by granting interviews."
How do you differentiate between tactics used by SaveGBC and SavingBellevue?
How do you differentiatie between tactics used by supporters of both church leaderships?
I really don't know that you can single any one or two of these "four" "sides" and say they were most guilty of such criticisms.
This has been an expensive mud bath, but I can't say that mud slinging hasn't been embraced by all four sides.
And the mud itself is not the cause. I'm still trying to get to the cause.
Rick Warren?
Elders?
Bylaws?
Music styles?
Politics?
Money?
All of the above?
What is happening before our very eyes?
How do we stop it when we can't put a name on it?
My hope is that we're on the cusp of a major revival. Step one of revival is brokenness. GBC is nothing if not broken. Is GBC leading the way into a huge revival?
Honestly, the only cause I know of is sin. Those of us who are Christians are being perfected; it's obvious we're not perfect now.
Again, I would prefer not to discuss the recent past at Germantown, in deference to those who are working to do God's will with regard to Germantown's present and future.
And the anti-Bellevue attacks are variegated; first, they focus on one thing, then another, then still another. If one thing doesn't get traction, move on to something else, no matter how insubstantial it is.
With regard to Bellevue, there aren't even two "sides." The viewpoint held by those who presume to be "saving Bellevue" became anti-Bellevue when they began to make it public. Senior Bellevue leadership has attempted to address their objections, but hasn't done so in a "taking sides" fashion, instead working for reconciliation.
How do we stop it? We don't. God is sovereign, and will allow or insist upon what He chooses to allow or insist upon. We're just supposed to be faithful to Him.
--Mike
Why did you say:
"...please take the time to visit the "Faux rescues" post on this site, located in the September 3 archive. "
If you then turn around and say:
"I would prefer not to discuss"
But that's fine.
Just understand that you are teetering on the edge of hypocracy while doing a lot of changing of sides...
I won't push.
>Why did you say: "...please take the time to visit the "Faux rescues" post on this site, located in the September 3 archive. " If you then turn around and say: I would prefer not to discuss"
Because I wanted to clarify my previous remarks, and apologize for the lack of precision involved with them. It may be a novel concept, but when I correct or amplify something I publish on this site, it's appropriate that everyone who visits the site knows about it.
The correction or amplification should be just as well-publicized as the original statement.
>But that's fine. Just understand that you are teetering on the edge of hypocracy while doing a lot of changing of sides... I won't push.
The technical term for what you're engaging in, whoever you are, is "grasping at straws." There's no need to knit hypocrisies out of wholecloth--if you like, I can direct you to other sites chock-full of pure, undiluted hypocrisy.
--Mike
Post a Comment