It was written over 40 years ago by a church leader to his congregation. The author is long dead. The community to which this letter was addressed is no longer recognizable as the church it once was.
The letter fascinates me for a number of reasons:
1. By any conventional standard of measurement, the community that received this letter was a “successful” church. This was not a congregation in decline. It was not threatened by extinction.
2. The letter seems to indicate that the glory days of church four decades ago, may have been a little less glorious than today we are inclined to think.
3. I see in this letter a warning that the methods clergy use to motivate their congregations at times may risk over-powering the message they hope to embody.
My dear Christian Friends :-
While this letter is going to everyone on our list, it is intended for those we see in church only occasionally.
It is two years this month since I became, in response to your call, minister of this church. There have been many encouragements and some difficulties, not the least of which have been the problems of our building programme. But if we are to be fully effective as a parish, we must remember that our primary goal is to worship God and to serve Him by serving others. Then, like Paul, we shall forget the things which are behind us, and get on with our task.
Frankly, the most disheartening part of my work is the failure on the part of some of our people to understand the importance of commitment and loyalty. For example, there are about 280 names on our parish list – some individuals, mostly families, who claim some connection with our church. Counting men, women and children, conservatively there must be at least 750 persons. The question is, where are they on Sunday while others are at worship?
Allowing for shut-ins and for those who are sick or away on any given Sunday, it remains truth that if the worship of God and the gathering together in the family which Jesus Christ founded were really important to us, our church would be full every Sunday.
It is amazing to me that Christian people who profess an interest in this church, do in fact (although unwittingly)destroy the work of others by staying away. Absence is not neutral – it is negative. As members of God’s family, we cannot strengthen one another if we remain apart; we must come together in the way the Lord has provided – and by our willingness to share in the responsibilities of the family of God and to serve as we are able.
How many recall the solemn promise made at the time of my induction to “afford to their Minister at all times all needful help and encouragement in his work”? How many appreciate the encouragement they give, not only to the minister, but to the choir and congregation when they worship regularly and how disheartening it is when they are absent for no good reason. Yet these human loyalties pale into insignificance when compared with loyalty to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, who found the Church and is the Head of it.
If you are one who has become careless about your worship, may I quite simply ask why?
1. Is it because I have failed you? If this is so, I am very sorry, and would like you to tell me how I can make amends.
2. Is it because you don’t get much from the sermons or services? Then a good question is – did you come to GET or to GIVE? If we come to worship God, to give ourselves more fully to Him, and to ask Him to make us more effective instruments of His love, we shall leave this house of prayer richer for the experience.
3. Is it because you have temporarily forgotten the stand taken at your Baptism or Confirmation – to put God FIRST in your life, to be a member of God’s family (the church) and to live up to the requirements of that membership?
4. Is it because the times of worship are not convenient for you? Then what should we add to those we already offer?
If each one of us caught a vision of this church as a Broadcasting Channel of God’s love, we would come together gladly Sunday by Sunday to worship Him, and go out into the world to minister to others in the power of His love.
I close this letter with a question – how can I help you?
Second, with a request, that we all thank God for that wonderful group of people who give so unstintingly of their time and gifts to further the work of God in this parish - without whom any church could not long continue.
Sincerely, ____________
*********************
I am intrigued by at least four implications in this letter:
1. Involvement or lack of involvement in church seems to be a personal statement about the professionally religious paid staff person in the community.
2. Failure to be in regular attendance at public worship is judged to be a failure to take seriously the promises and commitments of the Christian life.
3. The fact that in the ’60′s this was a busy energetic congregation, suggests that guilt and social expectation are effective methods to motivate people to participate in the organizational life of the church.
4. If the people who occupied the pews of this church forty years ago were involved because they were driven by some compulsion to please the minister, it is no wonder their children and grandchildren today can no longer be found in the pews.
I wish I could ask the recipients of this letter a few questions:
Were you happy to be treated this way by the letter writer?
Did nothing in the tone of this letter cause you to feel upset or abused?
Did this letter feel to you like a life-giving communication from the spiritual leader of your community?
What would it take today to redeem your vision of a church in which the leadership would address you in this way?
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 28, 2012 at 7:47 am
jaqueline
Here is a wise man finally speaking to archaic attitudes to women in his church:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/20/jimmy-carter-leaves-church-over-treatment-of-women/
March 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Tress
To answer your questions.
1.I would not have had enough respect for his opinion to care what he thought of me
2.the same
3.No , because he did not fulfill , what I consider, his responsibility ,to use the understanding , that one hopes he has learned from his education and training as a priest, and his commitment to his calling . plus the experience in dealing with people of many degrees of ability to live in the spirit.
To join these people into a community of those striving to understand their place in this existence ,
to learn the meaning of teaching of Jesus of Nazereth who in himself embodied those attributes of oneness with the Creator to which
they all aspire , according to their given gifts of understanding, and to find acceptance in their hearts and minds.
Question 2
For myself , There is no point in such a church as he describes.
Jesus said that his Kingdom was not of this world.
We are living in this world , so we must use all our abilities to understand . so that we may one in spirit.
The church is a group of seekers with a leader dedicated to helping us understand the meaning of the accumulated wisdom of our heritage and our spiritual example.
The nearest thing to such a church, for me has been the your leadership and the fellowship of our blog family.
March 28, 2012 at 4:01 pm
jaqueline
” The church is a group of seekers ”
Hi Tress,
I was interested that you described church this way , so many do not see it that way and perhaps that is what makes the energy at St Phil’s so enlivening.
This reminds me of something I heard that tried to explain the difference between being ‘spiritual’ and ‘religious’ a dichotomy I do not accept anymore but seemed to be an issue in the discussion I was attending.
So It was explaining that to be committed to a spiritual walk you had to be involved in the questions; but for many people, being religious, or ‘finding religion’ meant you had found an answer to those questions, that you were no longer seeking.
It made me realise that those, like me, who consider themselves religious seekers don’t really find acceptance in either camp. Those who feel they have found answers in their religion feel uncomfortable around Christians who are asking questions; perhaps because it implies that the seekers faith is not complete or perhaps because it implies that there is more to learn just when the answer finder had thought they’d had it sorted.
And those who find identity in the search, find Christians who are seeking uncomfortable because a faith in Christ just seems , well too definite.
For me faith in Christ was the beginning of an exploration, an entering into a new land, which was infinite to explore. I am glad I found the way through to this land instead of constantly having to seek the entrance to it. I am glad too that this land is rich and varied and not limited to one version of itself and that there is still struggle to keep me humble and mystery to keep it interesting.
March 28, 2012 at 5:05 pm
ZM Smith
I am astounded that anyone would call this pastoral questioning of lack of attendance at church abuse. This is a debasing of this word, for anyone who has experienced actual abuse.
I see in this letter a pastor who is evidently dealing with a difficult situation, given, “Then, like Paul, we shall forget the things which are behind us, and get on with our task.” He further indicates that there have been troubles with the building programme. He is humble enough to ask why people are not attending. Does anyone really want the negative answers in a survey? It is a brave person who asks why people have voted with their feet.
This priest stressed that the loyalty and commitment that people owed was to God first and foremost, and recognizes in his letter that the purpose of gathering together on Sunday is to worship God. He asks those who are not attending if there is any way he can help them.
You wrote:
“4. If the people who occupied the pews of this church forty years ago were involved because they were driven by some compulsion to please the minister, it is no wonder their children and grandchildren today can no longer be found in the pews.”
This is a huge assumption based on insufficient evidence. Besides, the priest is not writing to the people regularly in the pews, he is writing to those who have already walked away, whose children and grandchildren would not be brought to church. The children and grandchildren of the people in the congregation of this priest in the 1960′s elected to follow those who had already strayed and so the exodus from the church continued as people set up their asherah poles and worshipped in the “high” places rather than worshipping God.
More than 40 years ago was a time of great change as the social revolution of the ’60′s was underway, and it seems to me that this priest was trying to figure out why people were no longer attending church. Going from a society where it was the social norm to attend church to a society where people can just blow it off in a decade must have been traumatic to all involved. Put yourself in his shoes and see with his eyes, before you call his attempt to minister to his scattered flock abusive.
What are you doing to minister to the unchurched in your neighbourhood? When was the last time you spoke the name of Jesus to someone who didn’t know they needed him yet, and shared the gospel with them?
What is more loving?
A: leave people in the wilderness
B: call the flock home
I have no idea where you got this letter, or the specific context in which it was written. You can quibble all you like about wording, but fundamentally you’ve missed the point of this letter. I cannot imagine why you would apply the term “abuse” to this letter. God is not abusing his people when he sent his OT prophets to call the people to return to worship of Him. God accused Israel of prostituting herself, forsaking her vow to worship Him alone. God is not abusing people when He sent John the Baptist to call them to repentance. Jesus is not abusive when he called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs. He called a spade a spade. This is harsh language about poor leaders, yet He used it to call his sheep, who had been led astray, home.
People of this generation do not like it when others call them to account. It is one reason why so many reject the church and fail to put themselves in right relationship with God, and worship Him regularly in community as the body of Christ.
nb: I disagree with Tress in her definition of what church is.
March 28, 2012 at 11:42 pm
jaqueline
OK…I have to agree with you about the use of the word abuse, it wasn’t really was it…maybe for us today it is a bit much and could be taken as a stepping over the line of people’s autonomy..but in those days an authoritarian tone was expected…the counter culture was just that, most people were still about doing the right thing.
But don’t forget that Christopher is probably imagining what it would be like for himself to say something like that.
I liked your point about the prophets.
And reaching out to the neighbourhood is a good reminder.
But as a parishioner… I don’t think it is the clergy’s job to speak to us as kids and that pastor’s letter would make me roll my eyes and go ..see THAT’s EXACTLY why I am not there. A parent / child model of leadership is really very disrespectful, and frankly it is one God got beyond by becoming one of us. It does not allow Christians to grow actually. There are lots of styles of leadership and to an egalitarian style of leadership the authoritarian has too much potential for abuse….it truly does. The rest of the world woke up form that style after the war, the Church is still holding onto it and wonders why no-one wants to hang out in it’s four walls.
Ironically authoritarianism is making a comeback and I think i t maybe becasue the wartime generation and immediate post war generaiton are fading form influence in the world and the rest of us do not remember that an authoritarian culture almost destroyed the world. (Not that the post war generations have done much for it mind….we have all but destroyed what our parents fought hard AFTER the war to give us…a lessening gap between rich and poor for a start. )
I know you might attribute ill attendance to a lack of direction or standards in society…well, I see it differently, I think there are actually a lot of people with great standards who have been hurt and find it difficult to act on them because their sense of autonomy or competence has been eroded.
However, I am using your challenge that we ought to reach out to the neighbourhood as a plug for a notice board out front!! I have often looked at our notice board inside the church and thought, ~ does the neighbourhood around us really get a chance to know what we do on the inside here?
March 28, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Tress
yes , Jacqueline, so St Phil’s seems to me from the distance , One day maybe i can visit!
March 28, 2012 at 11:07 pm
jaqueline
You have a place to stay at Lindsay’s you know ~
no I am not being presumptuous about offering her place, she has told me a number of times
that if you ever made it down….
March 28, 2012 at 11:07 pm
jaqueline
hope that is still right yeah, Lindsay?
March 28, 2012 at 11:31 pm
lindsay
Yes, of course. Tress, consider this an open invitation. We can even invite Jaqueline and Rob and Kim to come over and get them to cook dinner for us. Apparently these guys know how to make a mean beef stew
. And if you’re more of the vegetarian way inclined, I’m sure we can rustle up a plan … right, Jaqueline?
March 28, 2012 at 11:44 pm
jaqueline
yep TOFU STU!!!
March 30, 2012 at 8:07 pm
kimgye
Ever tried Venison Stew? Local too.
March 28, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Tress
to z.m. Smith,
You did make me feel a little ashamed at damning the attitudes of a man that i did not know.
I do know that it was from those types of attitudes that i gradually retreated in the 60′s or perhaps a little before.
It is always difficult to be sure that we have the best perspective on things
A defense of Christopher Paige.
I do not know him in person , But every day he speaks to those who will listen on this blog, about the gift of the life of Jesus Christ , put ,I must say ! more correct in language,.
From reading this blog for over a year daily , also the comments , I understand that he is not always speaking to the converted.
March 28, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Tress
cnt’d
I was careful to say that i gave my own personal view of what would help me in church to develop that understanding of a loving God as exposed to us in the teachings of Jesus Christ . To some this may be heresy, But i respect the truths that others see including you.
I wish you well.
March 29, 2012 at 11:56 am
ZM Smith
Thank you for engaging respectfully with a different point of view. Profitable learning always occurs when different opinions are discussed, assessed, considered and either accepted, rejected or used to modify one’s own world view.
March 29, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Lisa Provedor-Snyder
Thank you, Christopher, for bringing this letter to the blog for discussion. Just as intriguing as the letter, are all the insightful comments it generated. I think each of the opposing opinions have some merit.
One thing that stands out for me is the way in which the minister addresses the absentee members of his congregation. Although he attempts a few questions, I don’t see a willingness in him to truly step outside of his own agenda and beliefs, and meet these people where they are,
For example, in his second question, although he does ask whether they are not satisfied with the content of the service/sermon, he quickly comes in with the admonishment that it is more important to give than get. Although one may argue that this is true, it is not the point. The point is, his admonishment effectively shuts down any further communication from his absentee congregants. It’s like he’s saying: “I don’t really want to hear your reasons.”
Secondly, it’s troubling to me that he chooses to address this issue in a letter which is sent out to ALL congregants. Putting the spotlight on wayward parishioners, especially in the presence of the ‘loyal’ ones, changes this letter from being a private, one-on-one inquiry into a very public criticism of certain members of the church. I find this type of public reprimand completely disrespectful.
Besides, if a minister is truly concerned about a ‘lost sheep’ in his congregation, he should reach out individually to each one. If there is any hope for a person to be transformed, it must happen in a one-on-one relationship. True transformation doesn’t happen en masse; it happens uniquely in the heart of each person.
March 30, 2012 at 8:06 pm
kimgye
I “like” this comment Lisa.