Treating church as a fetish
I have, over the last few years, had numerous conversations with intelligent, thoughtful individuals who continue to attend dogmatic churches that they no longer feel subjectively connected to. Indeed sometimes I speak to so many people in this position that I wonder if some churches are made up predominately of members who do not subjectively agree with what is being said, how it is being said, and the structures within which it is being said. And what is even more perturbing is that many of these people are not just pew fillers but actively involved in worship, speaking and leading.
One of the problems I have with this is that, whatever a person says to me about not really believing in what their church is saying or doing, their very presence within the structure sustains it and supports it. It was Hegel who wrote about how the State can flourish even if no one really believes in it, simply because the majority continue to act as though they believe in it. People involved at various levels of the State apparatus can say what they like behind closed doors, but if they are engaging in the rituals that sustain the State, then they are sustaining the State.
I must admit to getting increasingly frustrated with these conversations, particularly when I am speaking with confident, aware, independent people who are continuing to attend, not because they could not function without it, but rather because it would be too much hassle to make the break (perhaps because their wage depends on it, or their social networks are too intertwined with it).
This problem has a lot of resonance with Marx’ writings on money as a fetish. It is all too common to chat with someone about how money is not some magical property that brings happiness, that working all the hours God sends to increase capital will damage the most precious relationships we have and that having a better car is not what life is about. Only to realise that, as soon as they turn from the conversation, they act as though they did believe all those things. This is fetishism at it heart, ‘I know this thing before me is not magical but I act as though it is anyway’.
Those who stand in my position have all too often been sympathetic to these people who attend the church while saying, ‘I don’t really believe or endorse what is said’ because they are intellectually closer to us than those who attend such churches ‘naively’ (i.e. those who attend without questioning). However, we must resist such a seductive temptation and avoid getting drawn into sympathy for our friends in this position (and many of these people are my friends). For these people are the ones we should be critiquing most rigorously: for knowing what ought to be done and yet refusing to do it.
Tags: believing through the another, Church, Fetish, Marx, Peter Rollins
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Pete,
Perhaps the people who would question the structures of the church are, by nature, doubters. The same doubts they have about how effective the church is probably extend themselves. I don’t know where my (presumably) legitimate complaints end and where my own finicky, picky, clever nature begins.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I think perhaps the last line is the answer (and the question). The problem is that many may not know “what ought to be done.” There may be a sense of obligation involved (Christians should go to church…), and/or a sense that changing churches might not be the answer either (is one church really going to get it right? probably not, so I’ll just stay). And this might just lead to staying and simply talking about the need for change, etc.
I don’t know, just a couple thoughts (from someone who hasn’t gone to church in quite a few years).
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
In some ways this calls to my mind my reading of Kierkegaard’s ultimate state of despair from his Sickness Unto Death; namely that in which one has lost the self but does not realize that the self is lost. (Of course Kierkegaard seems very nervous in much of his writing). I found this to be a perfect description of my own experience falsely bound to a church that I did/could not subjectively embrace, a somewhat extreme fundamentalist protestant group made up of people that lived in a similar state of despair (though with different expressions in unemployment, sickness, family dysfunction, and etc.). It became clear to me after but a few months that I could not withstand this place, and yet I stayed for more than two years. I did not have social networks save for my girlfriend and her family (though they have since departed for another larger fundamentalist church, and neither of us regularly attend any church at this point). I did not feel bound by any shared creed or belief with these people, I did not have friends, I did continue to go to church while I was no longer churching.
Why did I continue? I would call it despair to a certain aspect. The experience has left me with an intense bitterness and a sense of paranoia about anything calling itself “Christian,” (even your books, though I enjoyed the first and am awaiting the second). I spent more than a year after leaving burying myself in science and realizing how silly the whole affair was. I have been/am an a/theist (you can see now that I have read your material) and a certain amount of despair has left me with somewhat more of a self in tension between the finite and infinite.
Why do these people stay? I like how McLaren puts it; there are the fearsome, the fearful and the fearless. I live in tension between fearful and fearless. I fear rejection with all of my heart so I am very “nice” but I am not truthful and have a tendency to lose my being as a result. My doubts have always lingered close to my faith though have been quenched frequently. Lately I gave up allowing myself to hold back doubt and I find my un/awareness of the infinite changing and shifting about constantly, providing me with both intense peace and intense anxiety.
I hope this helps you with your questions.
Best,
Colin
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 am
Hey all.
Thank you all for your comments, a mix of critical reflections and personal insights. Posts like these are my attempt/experiment with getting a little bit tougher with myself and my friends. I also worry that my own work can be employed as a means of legitimating structures which I question (something that a few of my perceptive friends have pointed out). And I want to continually challenge this, so that I do not become part of the very edifice I am critiquing – which can so easily happen. I have just finished an article called ‘Biting the Hand that Feeds’ which argues this in more depth.
Look forward to hearing more thoughts!
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 am
Pete – Weird timing- I have been talking with a number of people over this very dilemma just this week. Does one go any place that books you (and also taking money for a speaking fee) hoping those who have ears will hear what you have to say or do you refuse to speak at those places that give you considerable pause?
To give a concrete example, a buddy of mine who speaks internationally is slated to be a keynote speaker at a Christian conference where they are clearly using his name as a major draw to get people to register. He speaks a very nonpartisan Jesus centered message and yet this conference has a very clear political agenda that does not sync with his ministry at all. His argument was that he often speaks at groups where he doesn’t’ share their views, adding that he goes to these events to challenge their assumptions. He said he will not sign on to the political declaration that is being created at this conference. I added that given how they are promoting his name in conjunction with this gathering, they will definitely attach his name in some way to whatever work product they produce. (In this case he turns down far more gigs than he accepts so we’re not talking someone who has to take the money in order to say feed his family. That’s another issue entirely.) I see his point and he also sees how he’s being potentially manipulated here.
Add to it the dynamics that arise when one say has a product to promote albeit a book, record, film, and the like. Your publisher, record company, etc. is pushing for sales and is often paying all or part of the fees to subsidize one’s PR appearances on behalf of this product. This has become a huge issue for some dudes I know in the US because a lot of bodies that claim to be emergent are simply perpetuating the white male evangelical power structure. Do they show up knowing full well that they are participating in yet another event where women and ethnic minorities will be pushed to the sidelines? And should they make an appearance what do they say – a group of white men talking about inclusive church of the 21st century resembles a classic Monty Python sketch.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 am
There is no perfect utopia out there where everyone will agree or see eye to eye on every issue or perspective in any group, community or social network – life is not like that.
Rodney
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:13 am
I very much agree with what you say Pete. My approach is that I go along on a Sunday morning to ‘church’ because I want to have contact with people who believe (pretty much) the same stuff as me. I do not support the singing, preaching, sound system, car parking, etc. because I pretty much entirely disagree with the grip that Sunday morning services have on church and indeed disagree with what actually happens on a Sunday morning.
I’d been encouraged not to cooperate partly by Steve Chalke when he basically said not to support the status quo at your church if you didn’t agree with it, when he was speaking at Spring Harvest a number of years ago!!!
However, I think that cutting myself off from the established church would not help change happen. I guess it is the church renewal v. church planting argument at this point. I choose to not abandon my brothers and sisters. So I do feel subjectively connected to the people (which is the church), but I do not feel subjectively connected to the ’service’ activity (which is not the church after all).
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 am
[...] Richard emailed me a link to Pete Rollins’ latest blog post: http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=44 [...]
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:12 am
Pete, I’ve got a question I hope you’ll have a chance to answer.
At the end you say these people know what ought to be done yet refuse to do it. Can you give a description of what you think it is that ought to be done? Is the only solution for these people to leave their church so as not to implicitly support the things they don’t agree with?
Thanks,
Jason
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
Forgot to clarify – The word church could be used her interchangeably with conference – I am talking about any gathering of believers that might have started out with good intentions but has morphed into this missional monster. Do you stay and support the monster (after all you have made friends through this church, gathering, annual conference, etc. friends et. al.) or do you leave even if that means you might be alone?
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
I and many others I know remain in our churches because what else is there? I don’t want to be “gnostical” and cut myself off from a earthy and sinful community saved by the grace of God where the life, death and resurrection is proclaimed with power by having such people in it’s midst. Did not God anchor himself in carnal, fleshly Israel and work from within their midst. Doesn’t our “work” take place in the daily grind of life and the mundane? How does one respond to Bonhoeffer’s Life Together?
“Innumerable times a whole Christian community has broken down because it had sprung from a wish dream. The serious Christian, set down for the first time in a Christian community, is likely to bring with him a very definite idea of what Christian life together should be and to try to realize it. But God’s grace speedily shatters such dreams. Just as surely as God desires to lead us to a knowledge of genuine Christian fellowship, so surely must we be overwhelmed by a great disillusionment with others, with Christians in general, and, if we are fortunate, with ourselves.
By sheer grace, God will not permit us to live even for a brief period in a dream world. He does not abandon us to those rapturous experiences and lofty moods that come over us like a dream. God is not a God of the emotions but the God of truth. Only that fellowship which faces such disillusionment, with all its unhappy and ugly aspects, begins to be what it should be in God’s sight, begins to grasp in faith the promise that is given to it. The sooner this shock of disillusionment comes to an individual and to a community the better for both.
A community which cannot bear and cannot survive such a crisis, which insists upon keeping its illusion when it should be shattered, permanently loses in that moment the promise of Christian community. Sooner or later it will collapse. Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community is to survive. He who loves this dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.
God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians which his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren. He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together.
When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure. When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash. So he becomes, first the accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.”
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Pete – you specifically address “dogmatic churches” here. Are they the only focus of your frustration? Or would you “plot the downfall of Christianity in every form it takes”? (I forget who wrote that…)
By the way, it was noted above that this is related to the “church renewal vs. church planting” argument. I have a feeling Pete is not proposing either of those as the solution…
Personally, I am interested in the “church that’s not a church.” A different way altogether. “Church” for a “religion without religion.” I am beginning to experiment with this – I think it’s time for this to happen on a larger scale. It would look like many different things but it wouldn’t just be a form of church planting. At least that’s what I’m thinking…
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
i love this challenge pete. i agree with adam though that there are many who do not know what ought to be done (myself included).
perhaps zizek’s build on marx is useful? in the aftermath of the death of the metaphysical god are we simply clinging to church in a fetishistic way because we haven’t fully processed or owned that death – we don’t really know what to do about it? there is an obvious cognitive dissonance, but we are post-everything (defined in opposition or at least what we are emerging from) and not yet sure of what we are becomming. we are still in the midst of the deconstruction (i know this ‘process’ never ends, but it has hardly even begun for most of us). the implications are still obscure for me anyway.
think my head just got temporarily stuck up my own ass there for a second. stay with me. normal transmission will resume shortly.
that’s one of the reasons i admire you pete and what you’ve done. in building ikon and basing yourself within a community you are grappling with the implications of your message in a tangible, terrifying, failing and life-affirming form.
i get scared of my own questions. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and i feel like i am on the fringes of this new thing (the fringe of a fringe!) i lack the mind to truly comprehend.
there are few who really understand how much the foundations have been shaken and fewer still who can identify the implications. i think you are one of those few.
in the church but not of it.
the voice of one calling…
mmm.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Thanks for a provocative post. I appreciate your honest bluntness.
A genuine question – is it your view that church in its traditional forms is now obsolete and should be abandoned by intelligent, thoughtful, aware, independent people? In favour of a less institutional, less structured, more postmodern form of community or conversation?
If that is your position, I have a further question. Is there not a danger of falling into a form of inverse dogmatism and fundamentalism? While the conservative view says only these traditional forms of church life are acceptable, we can end up saying that only non-traditional, experimental, edgy, postmodern forms are acceptable. To say that traditional structures must be abandoned is surely to be just as obsessed with institutional forms as those who cling to them. Surely the more radical, genuinely liberating and subversive idea is that traditional forms, or the lack thereof, are neither here nor there. Get circumcised, don’t get circumcised. Stay Anglican, go emergent. Use the book of common prayer, use a radiohead song and an abstract puppet show. What counts is faith expressing itself through love.
It’s my experience that the most formally traditional Anglican or Catholic church can be the home of a vibrant community marked by the spirit of Christ – of grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, generosity, honesty and hope. And the most radically unconventional experiments in emerging community can be marked by arrogance, pretentiousness, cynicism and mean-spirited judgmentalism. And of course, of course, the opposite can also be true, and often is.
Which surely goes to show that the spirit of Christ, of his good news and good kingdom, is something quite distinct from our forms of church life? That he is not a tame lion, and he won’t be limited to traditional forms of church life, and also won’t be limited to non-traditional non-forms. He will bring his grace and healing and freedom wherever we least expect it.
I fear I’m preaching so I’ll stop. I would love to hear your thoughts.
May 24th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Back again and really interested in how this post has generated so a rich wealth of reflections. It will likely be the first of a few related posts. Just to pick up on the last post (which should include a few thoughts on my line ‘know what ought to be done’), I can see why you are asking me this question and I totally agree with your assessment. As Adam rightly perceives above I am less about replacing one church structure with another than about attempting to form news modes of ‘church without church’ both outside and (perhaps) within the current forms of church we see.
That needs a lot of unpacking (which I begin to do in my new book), but for now I will will mention that for us to really begin to understand and intuit what this will look like it means that we should not rush from one form straight into another, but rather some of us need to take time to rethink and reflect. Shane’s very encouraging post, expresses this beautifully, and hints that we need to create space in order to think before we run into something. This is what revolutionaries like Marx knew… they spent a lot of time in the library and in coffee houses reading the signs of the times, preparing etc. Why? Because we are so emerssed in a symbolic system that tells us what to do and how to think that we do not know what to do next – the cry is ‘no, not this’. It is a step out into the unknown, one that often cannot be legitimised because the only way of legitimising what one is doing is via the co-ordinates of the system one is rejecting (this fits with the Kierkegaardian leap of faith).
So then, what did I mean by the phrase ‘know what ought to be done’. A stepping out into a place where one does not know what ought to be done, inhabiting that place, experiencing it and experimenting within it – all the while knowing you may be messing up.
This is a scary place to be, one without compass and without map (in the words of U2’s Zooropia – an undervalued album in the U2 corpus I feel). It is the place Shane was talking about, and knowing him, it is the place where he is. There are other groups and individuals here (like The Garden in Brighton) and I love them.
Anyway, I gotta go… but let me say that I am excited about what lies ahead, so hope we can continue to journey together
May 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
[...] A convicting post about being in a church you don’t support. The implications run deep. [...]
May 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
[...] Peter Rollins schreef een interessant stuk over Treating church as a fetish. [...]
May 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Peter – you didn’t bring up your work with Ikon specifically and I didn’t notice the thread of Ikon’s work in the second book as strongly I did in the first. How do you see this community as fostering this much needed discussion? Also, does your work with Fresh Expressions, Blah and other places continue these discussions or is there a point where too much structure and order inhibits the dialogue?
I’ve found here in the states that the coffee shop talk tends to move (and I would argue often prematurely) into the realm of forming organizations which then kills the very reason why we all gathered in the first place. A number of “hot church plants” got enough fame to where what was once a safe place to explore and often times fail have become holy hipster hangouts with a few people in charge putting on a show for others to “watch” – with just as many rules and regulations as the legalistic churches they were rebelling against. Conversely, I have found especially in Episcopal circles that some of the churches are broken enough that they’re willing to break through of their denominational shackles – that’s potentially a very fertile place – it’s similar to where the CofE was back when Jonny founded Grace. Meanwhile, more often than not, I go fishing or kayaking to talk to God instead of a church.
May 25th, 2008 at 7:13 am
ok, here’s a stream of consciousness. i’m not sure how much of it i actually believe and am very willing to recant where appropriate. in fact, having now read what you’re about to, i’m not even sure it’s worth saying at all.
i think the 80/20 rule (80% of the work is done by 20% of the people) is always going to apply in any movement – whether that be a church or a political revolution. in this brave new church world i still see a role for pioneers, leaders, visionaries – or pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles – to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the son of god, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of christ (eph 4:11-13). it’s not necessarily a hierarchial structure either. i guess it’s just that some are more impassioned for the debate than others. so when the conversation gets ‘ruined’ by fame or notoriety, is it perhaps not only that the 20% become hierarchial – the stars everyone knows – but that they get swamped by the 80% who just want to spectate and the conversation dissipates and eventually dies?
i’m not sure.
i do know that too many (myself included) settle for the easy option. pioneering is lonely, exhausting and at times terrifying. (how do you cope with this pete? that’s not asked in any kind of suck-up way. i’m just tired and need a push). i’m constantly having to fight against the lure of safetly and popularity.
were i to align myself with any particular denomination it would indeed be the anglican/episcopal tradition becky. i agree with you that there are options open there that are utterly non-existent (or at least exceptionally rare) in other places. but, having worked for an anglican church for a few years i can say that the problem of course is that it is also one of the most dizzingly bureaucratic/hierarchical organisations on the planet and that if the local expression is a conservative one it is incredibly difficult to reorientate the congregation in a new direction – like trying to turn the qe2 round with a matchstick! endlessly frustrating.
meanwhile, want a fishing friend?
May 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I am speaking from the perspective having lived in the United States where we still claim to be a “Christian” nation where the dynamics are pretty unique to this country. As some progressive religious leaders (including some of the emergent variety) are playing partisan politics during the 2008 election, we’re seeing more collusion with Empire but we’re also seeing a real thirst to follow the radical Christ. I have just started to really explore global Christianity and plan on continuing this dialogue as the Christianity that I’ve seen have a truly transformative power tends to operate on the fringes of Empire.
What I have seen happen with US Emergent Church (TM) parallels the church growth movement of the ’80s out of which this particular stream of emerging church arose. What was started as a coffee house conversation morphed into an organization replete with publishing lines, self-appointed spokesmen and other hierarchical structures. They have now created the very institution they were formed to oppose. In fact, the people who are having the kind of conversations Pete describes here in the US often do not self-identify with emergent church or any other entity. Most US Episcopal folks I meet are turned off by “emergent” talk but they are very excited to learn about UK Anglican emerging church. That’s the work that really excites me as it’s where I see major signs of hope.
Shane what also happens is that old cliché – fame’s a bitch. What do you do with whatever power you are given as a result of your work – do you open up the kingdom so all can play or do you set up your own little secluded castle with a moat so only the elect can enter? Most people tend to take the later approach out of ego, self-preservation and the like. Shane Claiborne is an excellent example of someone who has become ridiculously famous and still walks the walk. He also eschews any labels and really hates being labeled emergent church because he’s not part of any “movement” but simply “Shane.”
The challenge (and I hope I wasn’t nudging you too hard Pete) is what to do when you have the microphone? We have a status quo in the States that needs some serious shaking up so the spirit can be set free. Those with ears to hear your voice tend not to be in the academy or in the cohorts but in the trenches.
As far as fishing – if I’m ever in your neck of the woods (wherever that is you live), love to go fishing with you – off now for a day of urban fishing here in New York City. Pete knows how to reach me – sounds like you two know each other.
May 25th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Great post. There is a definite issue here with supporting an institution which you disagree with. Even if you attend a liberal church, there is a tension. Perhaps you do agree with the lovely accepting folk in your own congregation, but by supporting the church in this context you’re also supporting a wider institution.
I moved from a charismatic-evangelical church which I had invested heavily in, because I could no longer support their agenda, and moved to a liberal Anglican church and alt-worship group. This worked really well for a couple of years. Then my cognitive dissonance resurfaced in terms of the wider church. For example, I had a strong emotional reaction when Rowan Williams supported the Catholic stance on Civil Partners adopting. From this time I have avoided church services apart from the minimum I feel I need to go to to honour God (Christmas and Good Friday, in my interpretation!). My partner has left completely. Fortunately though we are involved in a local spirited exchanges group, so we can still explore spirituality in a safer environment.
It is very emotionally difficult to leave church. Apart from friends and family being involved, there is also a strong inclination to feel that you are in the wrong by leaving. Unless you’re living in a major city you are unlikely to have somewhere like a spirited exchanges/post-secular group to belong to. Even with an appropriate network, it’s taken around five years for me to go through this process. It’s right to question why people carry on supporting something they don’t believe in, but we also need to be patient and let people take the journey at their own pace.
May 25th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
The conversation has moved on a bit, but in response to Pete’s initial post…
Surely the issue is more complex than a binary of agreeing/disagreeing (or feeling connected/disconnected)? There is a breadth within these categories. For example, while I may not “subjectively connect” with everything that my church does (confesses, etc.), there are areas where I do agree. It is a tension, but one that is necessary, even beneficial and faith sustaining. Far from keeping me in comfortable inactivity, this tension is compelling.
Looking at it from another angle, to simply break away from a church can be the easier option (especially if one then surrounds him/herself in a community of like-minded peers). The act of making the break can, in reality, be the one that avoids “too much hassle.” To remain in a church where one struggles with the tension of simultaneous agreement and disagreement — whilst striving for change and maintaining an openness to be changed — is hardly a cop-out.
Given the fracturous history of the church, it sometimes feels like schism and cliquishness is a fetish as well.
As for the quality of Zooropa, amen.
May 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Pete has raised some very interesting and indeed critical issues regarding being nice to Christian friends who do not see eye to eye on the postmodern debate.I myself am right here at the moment,sometimes thinking that I may be loosing my marbles.Tony De Mello says that when we think we are going mad we have awakened into a spiritual awareness that the sane and conformist never experience so that puts me at my ease.Rivalry is the curse of the faith community both between brands of faith expression and even within one individual community.Rene Girard says that we all have the tendency to use ‘truth’ and insight as weapons in the power game that we call life which only ends up in violence and scapegoating.How can those of a prophetic temperament bring insight and ‘revelation’ to fellow believers without strengthening the energy of the power struggle.In church history the ‘answer’ was rampant denominationalism which helps no-one.Girard’s answer is first an awareness of the rivalry mechanism itself and then being in mimesis with the God who does not enter the power game with his people – the naked Messiah who yielded up to the religious and political forces around Him.
Pete is right though to say that the prophets are too nice to their faith friends – we have shut up to try and keep relationship – I wonder if Isaiah or Jeremiah had many fath mates after their rants?Prophetic voices have usually been worked over by life’s pitfalls in order to help them deliver their powerful messages in weakness.Surely it is time for those to speak out as the church in the Western dies clutching at the next great cause or ‘move of God’.By the way I do not ‘go’ to church but find encouragement in the people that bounce into me on life’s journey.Keep up the good work Pete.
May 26th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
i wonder in this day and age, if attendance at one ‘church’ is an adequately full expression of our Christianity anyway – church for us is a diverse and divergent mixture of connections with God’s people, in our neighbourhood, in our local ‘church’, at work, in a missionary group, in our home through family relationships, in a global network of educators – we are church in many forms and our connection through each form provides a valuable dimension for growth and health and service – i love your post pete – it provoked thinking about how our patterns of attendance and exposure to one particular expression of how to live, be and become Christian seems a little bit outmoded (and by the sounds of it for some of us a wee bit confining and debilitating rather than life giving ?)
May 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I must admit I typically check your blog with fear and trembling. Today probably not enough…
As one of the folks with whom you’ve been sympathetic re:church, I take these words personally (in the best sense possible) and have spent a good while soul-searching. Your points are well-taken, and in context of other reading and thinking I’ve been doing, painfully well-timed.
On the other hand, after reading the responses and thinking some more, I’d like to humbly suggest a slight course correction.
My sense from your writing, and from the spirit you exhibit in person, is that you hope your words will take root & bear fruit. Your words, in many cases (and in this case specifically) have certainly done so, but I’d like to suggest that in this particular case, words in the declarative may be less effective than a series of questions. The questions you led me to ask were:
1) Why do I still attend a traditional church, when I feel so little connection to what happens there? (and even in your absence, you “hold my feet to the fire” on this one)
2)Might some of those reasons be valid ones? As for the invalid ones, what do I need to do about them? (Leaving church, for instance, may not be the only right answer to personal insecurity regarding my family’s expectations)
3) After reading “Signs of Emergence”, I’ve been challenged to view change as evolutionary rather than revolutionary (the latter being my personal preference). Is it possible that some of us might be called (though disenfranchised) to be a part of the painfully slow process of change within the established church? If so, what ought we to do about our complaining?
4) Is leaving church the right thing to do? It may feel more noble, but on a personal level it often has as much to do with sunshine and waves on the sand as it does a desire to know God better.
4) Do I really know “what is right”? (If the answer to this one is “yes”, then disregard my post–your critique is well-deserved).
Shalom.
Lori
May 27th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
For me, leaving church was an act of spiritual self-preservation, not a revolutionary statement. I spent many years attending church while simultaneously feeling alienated from almost everything that was being said around me, and I don’t think that I would have found being critiqued terribly helpful. I was making the best decision that I could make at the time when I stayed, and I was making the best decision that I could make when I left.
I still have some friends that attend quite conservative churches with varying degrees of dissatisfaction, and I am deeply grateful that they remain my friends – even though I have moved to a spot pretty far from Christian orthodoxy. I very much appreciate that they are able to see my spiritual journey as valid – even when the conclusions I have come to contradict their own.
And while I have a couple of friends who I think would be better served by leaving the churches they are in, I know that my own spiritual journey is highly complicated, and I frequently find myself believing completely contradictory things at exactly the same time. My actions frequently go against my stated values and beliefs, so I have no intention of holding my friends to a standard that I am unable to live up to.
I spent much of my life feeling like a “bad Christian” because I couldn’t make what I was hearing from the pulpit work for me. The last thing I want to do is turn around and tell someone else that they are wrong because they aren’t doing it like I am. In my own life, I’ve found blessing far more helpful than critique. Also, half the time I really don’t know what the hell I’m doing, so I’ve found it wisest not to make too many definitive judgments about the lives of my friends. Being my friend is not that easy – I’m just grateful there are people willing to fulfill the job description.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
mary daly’s example here might be appropriate. when she lectured at boston college they refused to allow her promotion “with congratulations” (something the college regrets to this day) with her remaining associate professor without full tenure until her retirement. as the first womyn to preach the morning sermon at harvard memorial church on 14th november 1971, she used the opportunity to lead a walk-out of womyn from the building, signaling the ending of her formal association with the institutional church. what a statement! and it probably said more than her continued involvement with the institution ever could have. (more here: http://tinyurl.com/29pq6v).
maybe staying is the easy option for me. i’m honestly not sure.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
I suppose I reckon, that it doesn’t really matter what theory of church you come up with, whether it is orthodox, or post-modern, evangelical, or charismatic, or whatever the hell it is…it still just seves the same purpose. This purpose, I arrogantly assume, is to appease some need for a general bigger picture, or linking thread (yes, even groups like IKON), that make help us lubricate the rest of our lives. We do what we do regardless, but we do it more efficiently, when we have a little release valve like an IKON service, or a church meeting to attend. We babble on about all these different theories about what church is to the modern and the post-modern, and it doesn’t really matter in the slightest. It just seems to facilitate the same thing. It may as well be yoga, or an other interesting hobby, or a popular blog…nothing changes…all remains the same…but everyone just gets a bit titilated; a bit appeased, and the system continues on, with us all oiled up and ready to continue with a new lease of life.
Maybe…who knows. I am full of shit.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:07 am
I must say that I don’t see an issue with a lack of people leaving their churches for reasons that are less than integral. That you seem to be concerned that this isn’t happening enough is pretty shocking to me, as if the western church needs to be more consumerish in its approach. I would love it if no one left their church for any reason other than denial of Christ’s supremacy and maybe 1 or 2 big reasons! What if we acted like churches weren’t something we could shop for like appliances? What if we stuck with them and made them better?
It makes me sad that you listed the idea of “social networks” as an unfortunate reason for people to stay in their churches. Some other, less cynical, terms for “social networks” might be fellowship, community, relationships. These are things worth staying for.
Disagreeing with things like too much focus on Sunday mornings seems like just a petty, silly reason to break fellowship.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Thanks for this, Pete. It was very thought provoking and quite convicting. However, I want to push back on a couple of issues that seem a bit reductionist in your post and that I’ve been wrestling with. Some of these have been mentioned above already, but here is my slant:
1. I agree that not making the break for financial or security reasons is unacceptable on a whole host of levels, and that in some way by not breaking away the structures themselves are sustained and perpetuated. This is a real issue. But this leads to several questions: is this creating an unhelpful dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them’, creating another ‘other’? What are the structures, and are we ever truly outside of those structures? For instance, what is the difference between someone taking a wage from a church, and someone claiming to be outside those structures yet being supported from book sales through a Christian publisher entirely funded by the same structures? Or speaking at conferences funded and attended by those who are in some form or another within those structures? Is there not some conflict of interest at work here? And on the other hand, if we are giving up on the idea of change from within, wouldn’t this counteract a lot of your own influence, as most of those that are influenced by your thought and work are within those structures? There are some tensions here that, it seems to me at least, are quite complex and involved.
2. Again, I think you’re right that it’s in many ways disingenuous to stay connected to something you’re not in agreement with, etc. I’m not totally sure what you mean by ’subjectively connected to’, but I think I get the idea. I’m just wondering if this isn’t perhaps falling into the modernistic view that the only (or main) issue of belonging is that of cognitive assent. Do we have other obligations beyond staying true to ourselves? What about relational responsibility to those we are in community with? You mention the ‘hassle’ of breaking with social networks alongside the money issue. Money I can understand; but if social networks are primarily relationships, why is this not a serious, theological issue that needs to be engaged in this process? This seems like it might risk turning relationships into obstacles in the way of attaining some sort of true, authentic freedom.
3. Might this idea of ‘making a break’ be trading one unhealthy idea (church as fetish) for another unhealthy, capitalistic one: a self-indulgent, consumeristic approach where we seek to fill our (subjective?) needs in another spiritual context – something we’ve railed on the seeker church for promoting?
This is why I found the last line of your post a bit condescending – I’m not sure some of us do know what is right. While there are shameful things such as money involved, some of the factors involved seem to be serious theological issues.
Thanks again for putting this out there…
May 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Pete you seem to be getting a bit of ‘intellectual’ flack in the last number of posts – maybe a Lone Ranger like myself can come to your defence.I was talking yesterday to a young pastor of a NEW style church in my home city.He is wired to love and be involved with people – a real genuine guy who has grown up under a leadership structure that promotes sucess i.e. growing church etc – a trendy form of fundamentalism that looks 21st century with denims,spikey hair,cool looking chicks etc but operates like a ‘Christian business’. I could see the stress in the guy – he and his dear wife are beginning to feel the pull of opposites – the pressure to make their system successful (whatever that actually means) or to be a loving human being ( not superpastor to his flock).The religious system no matter what the flavour eventually kills its ‘leaders’ like my friend.You either lose your integrity and play the game to keep yourself in paid employment or burn out and get disillusioned with your form of belief.Comments above reflect the ‘lay persons’ view of their religious system but what about its effect on the often well meaning zealous ‘believers’ who find themselves promoted within their system for whatever reason.We love the old Moses system – you go up the mountain and give us the rules while we stay down here without the risk of burnout or loss of faith.
Would Christian belief and practice survive if all our religious organisations were disbanded for a year – what shape would it return in after that? I have never heard of a group that has tried it.
Like a packet of fags (cigarettes!) organised systems of faith should have a Government Health warning – ‘ Attendance may damage your health’
If we believe the divine presence like energy cannot be destroyed why try and keep it locked up in our systemized boxes.I love that New Testament story of God breaking out of the Holy Of Holies by ripping the Temple Veil.Why don’t we follow Him out ? Trust or faith is scary but what a ride!
May 31st, 2008 at 5:18 am
Last weekend the strong winds that afflicted the South East caused the magnificent Wisteria that grows the height of our house to fall down. This had never happened before. This is an awesome plant that we inherited with the house. We do nothing to it other than to enjoy its blossom’s exotic aroma for two weeks in May. After many expletives and struggling through foliage to get out of our front door we panicked and pondered on how we were going to deal with it. Did we need to cut it all down? How were we going to get the shear weight and size of it back? So a process of deconstruction started, it was painful I didn’t want to cut any of its beauty. My husband balanced dangerously at the top of a ladder to rig up new wire supports and I set about pruning. After much fear, hilarity, help from a few friend and some interesting makeshift props a slimmer Wisteria is now back in place. However, the physical exertion of dealing with it has sent me painfully to the osteopath. As I sit here now in forced seated rest scanning blogs I was struck by your comment, ‘increasingly frustrated’.
Deconstruction in my experience comes after a period of crisis, where you are finally forced to deal with stuff. Through the process some kernels of the past can be kept, reworked and built upon, a journey being that which continues. But, the experience is tremendously painful and it is understandable that folks shy from it, how much easier to stick with an ache. We stuck with a church system for years here in the Chichester Diocese, which frankly should be renamed Ninevah. We felt that staying within the system and being the subversive grit in the oyster was the way to effect change from within. We were very frustrated, why couldn’t others see the utopia we had experience of and wanted to share? Then one day it all came falling down and we had to leave and it left us crippled for months as we reflected on all that had taken place. But we now find ourselves free, lighter with a new mindset that we were blind to before we walked. However, reflecting on the pain of that episode brought us humbly to consider our arrogance, who were we to think we had got it right? I think you refer in one of your books to Jesus’ salty teachings, to create a thirst for those who want to explore further and isn’t that all we can do? Quietly model, whilst humbly being conscious of our own incompetence.
Will I now be looking to warn those who have large plants dangerously hanging in their gardens? No, rather expect one day to be rung up to help, then to gladly do so, knowing that one will need rope and secateurs.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:34 am
Thanks for this comment Sally. I just posted a new thought before reading this. Sorry I didn’t take into consideration what you said as it might sound like I am attacking it! I think what you say here is great. Please feel free to comment on the new post, if you are not in too much pain!
December 7th, 2008 at 9:22 am
[...] Check out the responses and join the discussion here. [...]
December 11th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
[...] Pete blogged about people’s tendency to stay in churches even when they don’t agree with how they are being run. It was a challenging post, but I was confused by his definitive point. Is the only option for those who don’t agree to leave the church altogether, until they find a church with which they can agree on everything? My implication is that such a church doesn’t exist, so it isn’t much of an option. [...]