The time has come in this blog for an evaluation. To those of you who have been regular readers or even part-time readers, I want to say a big thank you. You have listened to my description of my church experiences and my evaluation of the American evangelical scene which resulted from those experiences. Now the time has come for you to judge what I have said. Therefore, I have three general categories of questions for you:
Have you experienced abuse within a supposedly “Christian” church? Was that church a typical “evangelical” church? What did you do about it? Have you since joined another church? How did that work out?
This blog, TH in SoC, has discussed several problems relating to modern evangelicalism. Do you agree with my assessment? Do you see any other problems with modern evangelicalism?
Do you believe the modern American church is a safe place? If not, what are two or three things that would make it safe?
Last week I sent these questions to a number of bloggers whose blogs deal with power abuse in church settings. I will post their replies as they come in. For readers in general, feel free to answer as little or as much as you like. And if you have a blog, feel free to mention it. One blog which I forgot to mention in last week's post is The Blog of Lema Nal (http://lemanal.blogspot.com/), written by a person who endured an abusive experience in the Plymouth Brethren-styled cult started by the Asian man I mentioned in my posts, “A Tour of the Fringes” and “Finding (and losing) Rebekah.” Because this is the same cult that sues its critics, I am going to modify this person's replies to my questions slightly, if they grant permission, to remove the actual name of the cult. I don't want to have to hire John Grisham as a lawyer! Next week we will move on from a diagnosis of problems to a discussion of solutions.
One other thing: if you are a church pastor reading this, I'd like to suggest that you be primarily a listener rather than talking. Perhaps after next week it might be appropriate for pastors to try and answer for themselves, but for now I'd suggest that you just listen. But if any pastors or so-called pastors use this occasion to post advertisements for their own personal “cult recovery” ministries, I will delete your posts out of hand. I don't mean to be harsh, but this week's post is not an opportunity for you to build up some “ministry” for yourself.
3 comments:
The replies are starting to come in...here's an edited reply from the author of "The Blog of Lema Nal" (http://lemanal.blogspot.com):
Hi, here are my answers to your comment on my blog.
1. I was not in an evangelical church. They have too serious theological deviations to be called evangelicals. Though they try to convince others that they are a part of evangelicalism.
The most common name of this group is [Editor's Note: the name has been deleted for legal reasons, but the group is the Plymouth Brethren-styled cult started by the Asian man mentioned in the TH in SoC posts, “A Tour of the Fringes” and “Finding (and losing) Rebekah.”] It began with [another man in an Asian country who was influenced by Plymouth Brethren teaching; see Editor's note above]. [The man who started the cult was the follower of this other man]. Since [the Asian man who started the cult] taught many heresies, [this cult] cannot really be considered an evangelical church.
However, I know that, at least, some of abusive churches use books [written by the other man] and his doctrines of the church authoritarianism caused these churches to become abusive.
In [the cult I was involved in], there is a strict submission to the leaders. The leaders are considered "God's deputy authority". They follow [the] teaching that in every city must be only one church. There are many other things.
After I left, I did not join any church.
2. I am not American, so I cannot say that I know the situation in American evangelicalism very well. However, from what I know, the problem of abusive churches and pastors that abuse their authority is very serious. Many people leave Christianity because of spiritual and psychological problems caused by abusive churches.
I have not read through all your blog yet. Mainly, I agree with you. However, I believe that there are still safe and healthy churches in American evangelicalism.
3. Abusive churches are definitely unsafe. But I would not say that all the evangelical churches are unsafe.
My suggestions to make the churches safer:
1) The authority in the church should belong to the whole congregation, not to one pastor. The congregation should delegate the authority to the pastor. This means that the pastor should be elected by the congregation and be accountable to the congregation. The congregation should have a right for impeachment if the pastor abuses his authority.
2) It is better if there is more than one pastor or presbyter who have equal position. Then they will have to make decisions together, and one person will not have all the authority.
3) There should be elected church council that works together with the pastor/pastors and elected financial committee that provides accounts of the usage of the church finances to the congregation. This also will restrict the pastor's authority.
4) Common members of the church should be more active and express their disagreement if the church becomes abusive.
You can post a link to my blog. I will be glad if my blog is helpful for somebody. My main concern is how to be a Christian after abusive church or pseudo-Christian cult.
Hello again -
I promised you an answer once I'd had the chance to read your blog all the way through - which I've now done.
1. Have you experienced abuse within a supposedly “Christian” church?
*Oh yes indeed; in fact, NOT experiencing abuse has been the exception rather than the rule.*
Was that church a typical “evangelical” church?
*Some were and some were not. I was not raised in any church, and began attending in my 20s. Of all the churches I've attended, I've found the most welcoming to be a Roman Catholic university chapel in Boston and an Anglican church in Brussels. Least welcoming were evangelical megachurches closely followed by ultraliberal 'white suburban' churches - UU and others.
I am a single woman and neither unintelligent nor unattractive, and I've always been amazed by the amount of hostility this seems to provoke in the "house of the Lord" - regardless of how quiet my manner and dress, and how liberal or traditional the faith professed in any particular church.*
What did you do about it? Have you since joined another church? How did that work out?
*There wasn't all that much that I could do, except to face facts: He who announced his Messianic nature to the Samarian woman, He whose empty tomb was discovered by a fallen woman redeemed, was not the main focus of these churches, and there was no place for me there.
I now believe that it is very much the pastor who makes the church, not the denomination. I am presently unchurched, although I stay at a Benedictine cloister as frequently as I can manage it, because the sisters are admirably human while being admirably faithful, their chaplain likes, respects, and values women, and the Rule of Benedict is very much about being a human being open to the love of God in community.*
2. This blog, TH in SoC, has discussed several problems relating to modern evangelicalism. Do you agree with my assessment?
*Yes, in fact I am amazed at just how much I agree. But I don't limit it to evangelical Christianity, nor to American Christianity. I tend to see it as a systems problem in general, with ecclesiastical systems being only one of the areas affected.
The basic problem seems to me to be the blatant misuse of organizations in general by persons in positions of power, for their personal aggrandizement. Historically this is a problem that waxes and wanes as civilizations do [which bodes rather ill for us, I'm afraid; I think that churches and corporations are both either at the nadir or very, very close to it at present, with political systems at about the same place as the churches in their respective nations].
Of course, a person or group that will abuse and divert an entire organization to selfish ends will have no qualms about abusing and damaging individual human lives in connection with this, whether it's an electroplating company poisoning workers with cyanide exposure, or a cultic church driving intelligent, thoughtful members to despair and suicide. But I see the underlying evil as pretty much the same, regardless of which corporate - or churporate - form it takes.*
Do you see any other problems with modern evangelicalism?
*It has sold its soul to Marketing. Not just evangelical Christianity, although the disease seems more pronounced there. I think of most megachurches not as churches but as churporations - church-shaped corporations. The CEO and Board of Directors want to steer the ship and the stockholders are supposed to go along for the ride.
This is the whole 'purpose driven' structure, after all. Warrenism is really just rogue capitalism in Sunday clothes. Note I say 'rogue' capitalism. There is certainly Christian capitalism, and the great Quaker concerns of the last century showed that it was quite possible to earn a right livelihood while conducting honest business in an honorable fashion.
I suppose I should add - megachurches also seem to me to be more like movie houses than houses of worship. People go there to be entertained, to have a good time, to feel good about themselves. They sit with their friends, talk with people they already know - who look just like them, physically and socioeconomically - get told how much God approves of them because they're not like whoever is on the outs at the moment. Enjoy the music, visit the concession stand on the way out, and don't forget to tithe.
[In one of your posts you point out the homogeneity of the megachurch culture: forget Buxtehude, we have a praise band whether you want one or not... this is also mass marketing. I laughed and laughed once when I tried to order a book at a chain bookstore and the clerk, who clearly didn't want to be bothered, tried to fob me off by telling me that there was 'no customer interest in it'. "I AM A CUSTOMER," I said to him, "AND I AM VERY INTERESTED IN IT. Which part of this do you fail to comprehend?"]*
3. Do you believe the modern American church is a safe place? If not, what are two or three things that would make it safe?
*Definitely not, for the most part. To make it safe would require, first, a large scale breaking of denial about the abusive structures and standards that are so predominant now - an ability to see that churches are not businesses, they cease to be churches the moment the profit motive crosses the threshold, they cease to be churches the moment they become more about any one man's ego - or one woman's, for that matter - than they are about God.
Strange as it probably sounds, this won't happen without a massive increase in humility on the part of the churchgoers as well as the church leaders! People who are attending a church to be told how much nicer, cleaner, more spiritual they are than the slob across the street - aren't going to church. They're going to the country club.*
PS - I'm American born, Caucasian in appearance [mixed race], and just a tad over 50, now, and I've lived on both coasts and in Europe. I've been observing the 'systems problem' since the late 1960s in the political world, since the 1970s in the churporate world, and since the 1980s in the corporate world. It really is very similar, wherever one finds it. It's as though there were an Eleventh Plague of Egypt -- a Plague of Abusers in Positions of Power.
Dear "th in soc,"
Thank you for your blog. I have been greatly helped by it, especially by the list of blogs and websites you posted earlier.
I met with the group you are referring to here. My experience was complicated so I won't go into it. (I consider them a genuine Christian group with lots of problems, including authoritarianism and cultish tendencies, rather than a pseudo-Christian group. Everyone I knew there was a believer in Jesus Christ.) I have not yet had the chance to read Lema Nal's blog, but will do so.
I'd like to encourage you not to be intimidated by them. That is, don't worry so much about naming the group, or the leaders. I could do so in this comment, but won't since it's your blog and I don't want to be obnoxious. It's your choice, and I understand your reasons. I would just say, the group lost a major lawsuit recently, so I think the weight of legal precedent would now be on the side of critics like yourself. Also, frankly, anyone who knows this group can tell who you are talking about by your description, so I'm not sure it matters if you become specific.
Anyway, just a suggestion.
Post a Comment