I'm not going to "review" the book O Me of Little Faith by Jason Boyett. Frankly, i think the book so good, all i can say is: Buy it; read it. I don't think any "review" i write would do it justice. Jason is an excellent & intelligent writer. Read.The.Book. If you're not sure you want to read a book on doubt, get the book & read the last chapter first. If you don't find it uplifting & helpful, well, enough said. He doesn't come up with reasons not to doubt; he has fine reasons why doubt & faith walk hand in hand. For many of us, at least.
Check out his blog. I recommend this post on The Problem with Asking Hard Questions. The comment section is excellent, too. (I will admit, however, that as much as i like the site, sometimes reading "doubt" day after day is a bit too much for me. Rather like looking at the glass as half empty too many days in a row.)
Obviously, the book had much in it which resonated with me. I wouldn't recommend it otherwise. I will be posting on some highlights that touched me.
Frankly, i'd very much like to send G a copy, very anonymously. (I don't think he'd read it coming from me.) I think he must be struggling a lot with doubt to preach against it (& fear & other emotion) so strongly.
In some ways i think my faith has grown to be quite strong. In other ways, not so much. I know a lot of people who see God in every moment of their lives. They walk him, talk him, regurgitate scripture every moment, pray continually, see him everywhere, & refuse to take credit for choice they make (good ones, i mean) in order to give God the credit & glory. I struggle with that thinking & mentality. Can't they see that they made a choice to do X, Y or Z, even if they ultimately give God the glory? And because this type of life/thought seems to be a "Christian standard" way of thinking, i can't help but wonder, "What is wrong with me?"
Anyway, in Chapter 2, Jason presents some of the arguments which "prove" God. The Ontological Argument, the Transcendental Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Anthropic Argument. (He covers them well enough in the book, but Google them if you wish.) I studied some of these in Apologetics in college. I find that my faith is based, in a large part, on what i would call a variation of the Transcendental Argument. That one is that ethics & morals could not have evolved; they require God. (Oh, go look it up!)
I think that man/men/mankind/people/folks could not be good, probably would not know what "good" is, were there not a God. I've never believed in "total depravity" for if that were so, the human race would have killed itself off long ago. People would not have children & raise them; they would have children & eat them. Amoral behaviors & wars would have killed off all the rest.
I am not arguing about whether sin is real, or that there are truly evil people in the world. It is, there are; that is obvious. I'm not arguing against the idea that we needed Jesus to be our "bridge" to a relationship with God. I'm not saying that people have the ability to "reach a divine state" apart from the grace of God.
What i am saying is that people know moral values. They know "good." A mother has a child & 99% of the time (i believe) falls in love with that child & wants all things good for him/her. A father wants to protect that child as well. Other folks admire the baby (they don't think, "Dinner!"). (Now, as the child grows, that ability to have patience can be another matter altogether! Oh, & yes, i know those feelings serve an "evolutionary purpose" - but that doesn't really sway me.)
People, all kinds of people - Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhists, Muslim, "religious folk," Wiccan, agnostics, atheists, non-spiritual, the lot - have the ability to show compassion, do "random acts of kindness," & come to the aid of their fellow human-beings, nature, animals, where they see a need. I believe that is so because there is within us still part of the "image of God" & the "knowledge of good & evil" which tells us when our behaviors are good or not good. We also know that we've fallen short of the impossible "perfect."
I know a few atheists personally. They are "good," moral, ethical people. In some ways they are much more consistent than many Christians i know. Why would this be so? Why would they not be "out for whatever they can get"? Why are they proud of being good?
I believe it is a piece of the human race: We know when we have done less than the best, when what we have done is not perfect. We seem to be, the majority of society, motivated to aspire to be good. I don't think society would survive were it not true of the majority, regardless of their beliefs.
Now, i'm not saying that this argument would sway anyone else. I'm saying, it works for me. I also fall in line with some of the other arguments. I like the argument of a designer (the Teleological Argument). When i see the complexity of the world, it seems to me that someone must have done it - & is quite proud of it too! But this one doesn't carry the weight that "people know enough to try to be good" has for me. I just don't think this would be so apart from the imprint of God.
For me, too, is the idea of personality. Babies have personality from the very beginning. I don't believe in the idea of tabula rasa. To me, personality is equivalent with "soul." From the very moment of birth, children have different ways of reacting, responding, different things upset or calm them, some have challenging personalities right from the beginning. That, for me, leads in the direction of "soul" & it seems to me that, somehow, that is something that continues. Of course, this idea gets a bit muddy when i see that most animals have personality as well. That is, frankly, why i lean toward vegetarianism. How can i eat something with personality (soul)?
Now, feeling i have bits of "a strong faith" doesn't mean i haven't doubts. There are odd times when i think, "What if it is not so? What if when we die there IS nothing more?" Part of me thinks that i'll be very disappointed. There are many places i've not gone here on Earth, because, quite frankly i'm content to wait & see them in the "New World" to come. I would miss all of that. I won't be meeting the children we've lost; i won't be seeing dear ones who have "gone before," i won't be meeting Jesus, i won't be seeing GOD. But, of course, if there is nothing more i won't know all those things. It won't matter.
But those moments of strong doubt are brief. In general, when i hear someone i know has died, my response has been, "They get to be with Jesus! They are with God!" Of course, very soon after that the reality & sorrow of loss sets in. But frankly i will admit, my first response is usually, "They are with Jesus!" (And i'm jealous for that moment.)
However, this also doesn't stop me from seeing the cruel twists of life: Cancer in children, & loss of young mothers; earthquakes & volcanoes, rain & floods that do so much damage & loss of life; serial killers & pedophiles; folks who don't want children have them, folks who desperately want them don't; some folks get to have 18 children & others none at all; chronic illnesses that devastate lives. I have some answers for some of this (usually very critical of people's choices) but in general, life of unfairness & death in innocents disturb me very much.
And if God really pulls all the strings as some folks claim, how can we understand so much of the unfairness? It seems that the flip side of "the Lord provides" definitely is that "the Lord takes away." For those he blesses with children, has he cursed those of us without? The righteous & the unrighteous alike are mowed down & sometimes it seems the righteous get it harder than those who don't honor God. How can we be intelligent, thinking beings & NOT question these things?
Yet our answer is no more than was given Job: God is not in need of the approval of his creation. He is free. Jason did a good job in this chapter of talking of how Jesus, in many ways, did not elucidate God or the nature of God very well at all. He essentially told us: God is a mystery. We cannot define him, box him, study him as we would nature, we cannot capture, hold, or pin him down. We can, occasionally feel the effects of him, but beyond that we have very little to go on.
It was my intent to write, as well, on belief systems, how & why we box ourselves &/or God into tight places.
But this is long enough.
I will reiterate: In some ways i feel i have a very strong, firm faith. I'm very thankful for it. Some of it is due to attending a church that doesn't believe as i do because it has helped me to refine/define/clarify what i do believe & what i feel is important. Honestly, i don't believe that too much of what i believe is all that important. The basic tenants of the Nicene creed do for me. The rest simply comes down to obedience.
G, when we joined the Lutheran church (this was my first red flag) wanted to insist that we MUST believe that at the moment of accepting communion, it was transformed to be both bread/wine & body/blood. Frankly, i don't care either way & i don't consider it all that important. I think the act of obedience to the command of Jesus, regardless of my belief, is what is important.
This, plus my own doubts & weaknesses would damn me to hell in the thinking of G. In his thinking, any fear or doubt or depression means lack of faith in God & is the path to hell. This is why parts of my faith are strong: I've spent over 2 years countering such thought.
I've also disagreed with G that we need to convince other people that they are bad or evil. My thought is, let them believe they are "good" all they want. Why argue? The reality is they probably ARE good people, as people standards go. Kind of like someone who can broad jump 18 feet when most of us can only broad jump 8. They are far & away better at it than the rest of us. But will that extra 10 feet make a difference when trying to broad jump the Grand Canyon? We all plummet without the saving grace of the sacrifice Jesus made. G was "offended" by my argument because it flew in the face of everything he has believed, but he could find no fault with my reasoning. It didn't change how he sees fallen man, however. Nor his preaching that we are evil little people, not worthy of God's grace & probably won't "make it" anyway, due to our fears & doubts.
I've still my weak parts of faith, & that is why i so very much appreciate the book, O Me of Little Faith. :)
27
23 June 2010
19 June 2010
Why?
I'm not a person who asks, "Why?" often. I think in particular, i don't ask that of God. More than anything else because i don't expect i'll get an answer. Any question to God that begins "Why . . . " seems to result in a default response of "Your question in not in a form to which i can respond."
That didn't have a lot of meaning to this post, just a gratuitous thought on questioning God.
My "why" question today is a little more direct. "Why have we been going to this Lutheran church for over 3 years?"
Several times i've shared with other people different things that G has preached & with which i felt profound discomfort. More than once the response has been, "And you're still going there? Why are you still going there?"
My answer has invariably been, "Because i feel God wants me there," or "I feel we are called to be there."
I will be frank, i'm not a big believer in "the will of God," or "God's perfect plan." I tend to be more of the "lo que sera sera" ("what will be will be") mindset.
But it felt right to be at that church. There were many positive things that drew us there. So it was right, until it wasn't any more. The "it isn't right anymore" happened very quickly. We had talked about our issues, worried over them, prayed about it, etc. for months, even a year or more. Then between about the 27th of May & the 4th of June, bam! It was done.
Part of the reason that i felt it right to be at that church for so long was that i felt it was "stretching" me. Duane & i spent much time discussing the homilies G gave, & where we disagreed & why & what our own beliefs are, & what we felt the scripture meant. I think this has probably strengthened my faith more than i could begin to imagine.
I'm not boasting in my strength, but i can frankly say that i feel very strong in my faith. It rather surprises me how strong i feel. It is rather like i've been exercising a muscle for the past months/years & now, when it is called upon, it responds in a manner that is so easy i'm shocked. I know that had this happened a few years ago, i would have been devastated.
When i was in a difficult place many years ago, i used the analogy of a plant. I told someone that i had a scrawny plant of faith, maybe just a couple of wilted leaves on it. But that the root, while tiny, maybe not much more than a thread, went very, very deep & was rooted & grounded. I'm currently feeling like that plant of faith has grown a lot & maybe even blossomed.
In many ways i considered myself a "spiritual weakling**." In many ways i am. I still struggle with bitterness & disappointment. I still don't understand many of the things in the world i find so incredibly perplexing. I'm still going to be talking about the book on spiritual doubt that i've mentioned. But i do know very well the things i do believe & i hang onto them tightly.
I also see timing as critical. I don't know if what i hope to happen will happen, but the timing was important. IF we had left even 2 weeks sooner than we did, we would not have heard G's sermons that crossed from questionable into definite heresy. Because we were there to witness that, we were able to bring it to the elders' attention.
G has gone on defensive. M told me G said, "I have teeth" (from my post on the 13th). Duane said, in response to this, that it is the dog who feels cornered who bites. If G really wasn't threatened by our charges, he wouldn't need to bite.
I don't think the changes i think this church needs & i hope will happen will occur, certainly not very soon. But we hope seeds are planted that will produce the awareness of the need for change.
We have not heard anything from the church. Duane doesn't think we will. I can't imagine that they won't respond. It seems to me that even just a letter stating that "they" (whether the elders or council, i don't know - probably not the congregation) voted & upheld G's stand. Thus far we have heard nothing.
** Oh Me of Little Faith
26
That didn't have a lot of meaning to this post, just a gratuitous thought on questioning God.
My "why" question today is a little more direct. "Why have we been going to this Lutheran church for over 3 years?"
Several times i've shared with other people different things that G has preached & with which i felt profound discomfort. More than once the response has been, "And you're still going there? Why are you still going there?"
My answer has invariably been, "Because i feel God wants me there," or "I feel we are called to be there."
I will be frank, i'm not a big believer in "the will of God," or "God's perfect plan." I tend to be more of the "lo que sera sera" ("what will be will be") mindset.
But it felt right to be at that church. There were many positive things that drew us there. So it was right, until it wasn't any more. The "it isn't right anymore" happened very quickly. We had talked about our issues, worried over them, prayed about it, etc. for months, even a year or more. Then between about the 27th of May & the 4th of June, bam! It was done.
Part of the reason that i felt it right to be at that church for so long was that i felt it was "stretching" me. Duane & i spent much time discussing the homilies G gave, & where we disagreed & why & what our own beliefs are, & what we felt the scripture meant. I think this has probably strengthened my faith more than i could begin to imagine.
I'm not boasting in my strength, but i can frankly say that i feel very strong in my faith. It rather surprises me how strong i feel. It is rather like i've been exercising a muscle for the past months/years & now, when it is called upon, it responds in a manner that is so easy i'm shocked. I know that had this happened a few years ago, i would have been devastated.
When i was in a difficult place many years ago, i used the analogy of a plant. I told someone that i had a scrawny plant of faith, maybe just a couple of wilted leaves on it. But that the root, while tiny, maybe not much more than a thread, went very, very deep & was rooted & grounded. I'm currently feeling like that plant of faith has grown a lot & maybe even blossomed.
In many ways i considered myself a "spiritual weakling**." In many ways i am. I still struggle with bitterness & disappointment. I still don't understand many of the things in the world i find so incredibly perplexing. I'm still going to be talking about the book on spiritual doubt that i've mentioned. But i do know very well the things i do believe & i hang onto them tightly.
I also see timing as critical. I don't know if what i hope to happen will happen, but the timing was important. IF we had left even 2 weeks sooner than we did, we would not have heard G's sermons that crossed from questionable into definite heresy. Because we were there to witness that, we were able to bring it to the elders' attention.
G has gone on defensive. M told me G said, "I have teeth" (from my post on the 13th). Duane said, in response to this, that it is the dog who feels cornered who bites. If G really wasn't threatened by our charges, he wouldn't need to bite.
I don't think the changes i think this church needs & i hope will happen will occur, certainly not very soon. But we hope seeds are planted that will produce the awareness of the need for change.
We have not heard anything from the church. Duane doesn't think we will. I can't imagine that they won't respond. It seems to me that even just a letter stating that "they" (whether the elders or council, i don't know - probably not the congregation) voted & upheld G's stand. Thus far we have heard nothing.
** Oh Me of Little Faith
26
15 June 2010
I discovered something yesterday
It is probably clear that i am & have been distressed about the things G preaches. They often aren't horrible, horrible, but it does seem that even when he gives a really good sermon he has to throw something in that is manipulative in some way.
Even when we first began attending there & i felt some "glow" from the sermon he gave, when thinking back over it later what usually stuck in my head was the guilt from that manipulation. After this had been happening for some time it distressed me more & more. He is a very good speaker, & it bothered me that all i was taking away was some guilt, or shame, or fear.
It has also distressed me that he would use such tactics on the good people of that church. Except that G has re-written the English language so that there is no "good" apart from God. He would rail against the phrase, "No, thanks, I'm good," in his sermons (i'm told it is bad grammar, but my grammar skills are sadly lacking). Now, i know that people can be really, really wicked. I know none of us are as good as we want to be, let alone be good enough to come into God's presence on our own. That is why Jesus came.
We figure that G has never heard the terms, "Good, better, best," or "Fair, good, excellent." I know we can't be good enough to reach God on our own, but i've never understood why we have to be chastised or beaten up because of it. What good does it do to to rail against me because i'm a sinner? Jesus forgave me of that & i'm washed clean.
So, much of my concern over this church is that people are being taught what robs them of their joy & doesn't really feed them. I've been deeply burdened for the church as a whole because of this.
Yesterday on my way into town i realized a truth. We have done what we can in order to address this. I wish we could have shared our concerns with more people so that they'd think more critically (evaluate what is said, not just soak it in), but we shared it with folks who are responsible for the church. If they continue to allow such preaching & such abuse, if they continue to sit in the pews week after week & take it, that is their choice. I can't "fix it" & i never could.
Frankly, i too have seen them as children (as i've accused G of treating them like "stupid children") & wanted to "save them" from such abuse. But they are not children; they are mature adults. I think we've waved red flags about what is taught, but they are able to determine whether or not they choose to pay attention.
While i will always be concerned & sorry that such sad things are being done in that church, i can't do any more than i have. If they continue to allow it, that is their choice.
_________________________
I'm reading O Me of Little Faith & will probably write about that next. Maybe even chapter by chapter. I'm only part way into it & what he is saying resonates with me much.
25
Even when we first began attending there & i felt some "glow" from the sermon he gave, when thinking back over it later what usually stuck in my head was the guilt from that manipulation. After this had been happening for some time it distressed me more & more. He is a very good speaker, & it bothered me that all i was taking away was some guilt, or shame, or fear.
It has also distressed me that he would use such tactics on the good people of that church. Except that G has re-written the English language so that there is no "good" apart from God. He would rail against the phrase, "No, thanks, I'm good," in his sermons (i'm told it is bad grammar, but my grammar skills are sadly lacking). Now, i know that people can be really, really wicked. I know none of us are as good as we want to be, let alone be good enough to come into God's presence on our own. That is why Jesus came.
We figure that G has never heard the terms, "Good, better, best," or "Fair, good, excellent." I know we can't be good enough to reach God on our own, but i've never understood why we have to be chastised or beaten up because of it. What good does it do to to rail against me because i'm a sinner? Jesus forgave me of that & i'm washed clean.
So, much of my concern over this church is that people are being taught what robs them of their joy & doesn't really feed them. I've been deeply burdened for the church as a whole because of this.
Yesterday on my way into town i realized a truth. We have done what we can in order to address this. I wish we could have shared our concerns with more people so that they'd think more critically (evaluate what is said, not just soak it in), but we shared it with folks who are responsible for the church. If they continue to allow such preaching & such abuse, if they continue to sit in the pews week after week & take it, that is their choice. I can't "fix it" & i never could.
Frankly, i too have seen them as children (as i've accused G of treating them like "stupid children") & wanted to "save them" from such abuse. But they are not children; they are mature adults. I think we've waved red flags about what is taught, but they are able to determine whether or not they choose to pay attention.
While i will always be concerned & sorry that such sad things are being done in that church, i can't do any more than i have. If they continue to allow it, that is their choice.
_________________________
I'm reading O Me of Little Faith & will probably write about that next. Maybe even chapter by chapter. I'm only part way into it & what he is saying resonates with me much.
25
13 June 2010
I can't promise
. . . that this will be my last post about the Lutheran church. Right now it has a lot of importance in my mind & so i keep going over & over it.
I will post also, when we have some answer from the church.
Part of me wants to demand (shriek, scream) at G: WHAT is your problem? HOW can you treat the children of God in such a manner?
Part of me feels incredibly sad that he must be in a bad place to preach so. I think he works under a great deal of fear & that is largely driving all that he says & does.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not speaking of what has happened to us, but to the way he treats the congregation during service. He rants & shames. He is not like that most other times. He can be very kind & considerate & is most of the time. I do believe he has a "pastor's heart."
But the way he preaches is not kind & i think he must see God as a very angry, vengeful God. I see no other way that he can preach so much anger, guilt, hate, shame & fear. He seems (in my opinion) to treat the congregation like a group of very slow children instead of intelligent, mature adults. BUT THEY LET HIM DO IT!
I ran into a member of the congregation in a store today. M greeted me heartily (i did choose to go talk to him; i'm not going to run away from folks i know). He said, "I've not seen you at church in a while."
"You're not likely to, either," i responded. "G has ex-communicated us for going to other churches."
M didn't know about it because he takes the children during the homily & doesn't hear the sermon. He did say that as he was returning to his seat that G had said, "I have teeth."
I don't know if that remark was made this week or last. If it was this week i've not much hope for a positive outcome on G's part. It would mean that he spent today's homily justifying his cause against our charge of non-Biblical teaching. It means that he won't accept what we've said but is going to rail against us & the charge. It means he will continue taking it out on the congregation. It means the elders won't put a check on him. It means things won't change.
Frankly, i'm dismayed at this idea. It bothers me.
But i've prayed thru the afternoon that whatever happens i will be able to simply walk away. Not to have my ego involved. I can't make things happen. I'm not even sure that i would know the best. I need to do my best to continue to love the people but not be caught up in the mess. It isn't my church, anyway, nor is it G's church. The church belongs to God & the people belong to God.
This isn't the first time that uncomfortable things have happened in this church. This church split in half a year or so after G arrived to be pastor. I've been told that there was a lady who wanted to "run things" & disagreed with G on a number of things & began spreading rumors & gossip throughout the church.
I can't help but wonder if some of that was spin. If she was concerned about some of the things G was teaching, did she try to confront it? Duane & i have worked very hard to severely limit what we say to members so as to NOT be guilty of spreading disaffection, but i can't help but wonder if that will be the spin that the people are told about us.
Anyway, M wished me well, "Go with God," & assured me it will be brought up at council meeting (we used to be on the council together).
The outcome is God's. I have much i would like to say to the elders, but regardless of whether i have the opportunity, i need to detach. Let go. Stop obsessing. (I don't find that easy.)
Go with God, & be assured that he promises to work all things to his glory.
24
I will post also, when we have some answer from the church.
Part of me wants to demand (shriek, scream) at G: WHAT is your problem? HOW can you treat the children of God in such a manner?
Part of me feels incredibly sad that he must be in a bad place to preach so. I think he works under a great deal of fear & that is largely driving all that he says & does.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not speaking of what has happened to us, but to the way he treats the congregation during service. He rants & shames. He is not like that most other times. He can be very kind & considerate & is most of the time. I do believe he has a "pastor's heart."
But the way he preaches is not kind & i think he must see God as a very angry, vengeful God. I see no other way that he can preach so much anger, guilt, hate, shame & fear. He seems (in my opinion) to treat the congregation like a group of very slow children instead of intelligent, mature adults. BUT THEY LET HIM DO IT!
I ran into a member of the congregation in a store today. M greeted me heartily (i did choose to go talk to him; i'm not going to run away from folks i know). He said, "I've not seen you at church in a while."
"You're not likely to, either," i responded. "G has ex-communicated us for going to other churches."
M didn't know about it because he takes the children during the homily & doesn't hear the sermon. He did say that as he was returning to his seat that G had said, "I have teeth."
I don't know if that remark was made this week or last. If it was this week i've not much hope for a positive outcome on G's part. It would mean that he spent today's homily justifying his cause against our charge of non-Biblical teaching. It means that he won't accept what we've said but is going to rail against us & the charge. It means he will continue taking it out on the congregation. It means the elders won't put a check on him. It means things won't change.
Frankly, i'm dismayed at this idea. It bothers me.
But i've prayed thru the afternoon that whatever happens i will be able to simply walk away. Not to have my ego involved. I can't make things happen. I'm not even sure that i would know the best. I need to do my best to continue to love the people but not be caught up in the mess. It isn't my church, anyway, nor is it G's church. The church belongs to God & the people belong to God.
This isn't the first time that uncomfortable things have happened in this church. This church split in half a year or so after G arrived to be pastor. I've been told that there was a lady who wanted to "run things" & disagreed with G on a number of things & began spreading rumors & gossip throughout the church.
I can't help but wonder if some of that was spin. If she was concerned about some of the things G was teaching, did she try to confront it? Duane & i have worked very hard to severely limit what we say to members so as to NOT be guilty of spreading disaffection, but i can't help but wonder if that will be the spin that the people are told about us.
Anyway, M wished me well, "Go with God," & assured me it will be brought up at council meeting (we used to be on the council together).
The outcome is God's. I have much i would like to say to the elders, but regardless of whether i have the opportunity, i need to detach. Let go. Stop obsessing. (I don't find that easy.)
Go with God, & be assured that he promises to work all things to his glory.
24
09 June 2010
For Those who are Interested
This is quite long.
It is an exact copy of what we sent to the pastor & three elders, with identifiers removed. We are praying that these letters will make a difference to the direction in which this church is headed. There is so much more we would like to say here, like the idea of cults, & other things preached which at least border on heresy, but i think we said the salient things. We haven't much hope that this will make a difference as the elders tend to rubber-stamp what is said by the pastor. We hope that the reality of what has been said will sink in, but haven't much belief it will happen. If they follow protocol, however, the whole voting congregation will have to vote on this.
7 June 2010
Mr. G
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear G -
At the time of your conversation with Kathryn on Friday 4 June, she readily agreed to your edicts without thinking through the implications and consequences. Duane was not even included in this discussion. He should have been the person to whom the call was made. We had already determined we would bring this issue to you and that Duane as the head of our household would be the one to do so.
If you were able to explain to the congregation in Sunday service why attending other churches is a serious offense worthy of ex-communication, we would very much like that explanation given to us as well. We were not aware that it was an offense against (the local) church, nor that it merited a punitive response, and we felt that we were doing this for a very good reason, which we would be happy to explain to the elders or the church at large. We have researched Lutheran doctrine and the usage of ex-communication as far as we were able and have found nothing that indicates such a response was warranted.
The only person of whom we are aware of having been ex-communicated from a church (Episcopal) was guilty of egregiously sinful behavior, deliberately spreading disaffection and dissent through the body of that church. Even so, the vestry of that church spent much time (months), pain, and prayer before they voted to follow that path. Every effort was made to bring the person involved back into fellowship before taking this very serious measure.
To our knowledge, we are not aware of egregious behavior on our part. We have worked very hard not to talk with other members of SITP of our concerns so as not to create disaffection and dissent in the body. Our understanding is that the decision to excommunicate us was made in a very rapid manner without the knowledge or vote of the elders or congregation. We are surprised and even shocked that such a weighty decision could be made with so little regard. We are also surprised in light of the weekly invitation to communion in the church bulletin that invites all Christians “who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament” to partake regardless of their church background. We took this invitation to mean that the church accepts open communion.
In our thinking, ex-communication is a very serious thing, not to be done quickly, lightly, or without the support of the church or church leaders. In every case we have found in our search to understand, it occurred in regard to unrepentant sin. This carries with it a very painful disgrace not easily accepted, especially without proper explanation. It concerns us that one man in the church has this much power and authority and has done this outside of proper channels and without check, disregarding proper protocol for such a step.
Please share the manner of our transgression, the nature of why it is misconduct, and what warrants ex-communication with us at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention. The Peace of the Lord be with you.
Sincerely,
Duane and Kathryn
cc: elders
Here is what Martin Luther has to say on the subject in his book, Luther's Small Catechism.
279. What great care must be taken in dealing with an openly unrepentant sinner?
*****The Christian congregation must carry out church discipline in love and patience.
See: (Mathew 18:15-17)(Galatians 6:1-2)(Ephesians 4:2-3)
280. What must the congregation finally do with openly unrepentant sinners?
*****The Christian congregation must exclude openly unrepentant sinners (excommunication).
See: (1 Corinthians 5:13)
281. By what authority does the congregation excommunicate openly unrepentant sinners?
*****Excommunication is authorized by Christ and is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.
See: (Mathew 18:18)
282. What is the duty of the called minister of Christ when the congregation has excommunicated a sinner?
*****The called minister of Christ must carry out the resolution of the congregation, that is, he must exclude the excommunicated person from the rights and privileges of a Christian.
283. What is the purpose of excommunication?
*****Excommunication is not intended to punish the sinner,
A. but to lead him or her to repentance and faith;
B. prevent him or her from leading others into sin.
See: (Mathew 12:20)(Acts 3:19)(Mathew 18:6)(1 Corinthians 5:6)
284. What is the duty of a congregation toward an excommunicated sinner who repents?
*****The congregation must forgive any excommunicated person who repents and receive him or her back into full fellowship.
See: (2 Corinthians 2:7-8)
The next section can be found online at this address:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/
A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
November 1985
(Section) V
Specific Questions Regarding Church Discipline
in the Christian Congregation
1. What is the role of the pastor in church discipline? The pastor's role varies. Members will approach him with problems, reports, or gossip. What course should they pursue with one who has grieved them? What, if anything, should be done with gossip about themselves or others? In answering these and similar questions, the pastor serves as counselor to his flock, directing them on the basis of Holy Scripture in their dealings with fellow Christians.
In some cases, for example, when a member of the congregation has been guilty of sin against him personally, when one despises the means of grace, or persists in seeking an unscriptural divorce, the pastor may be involved from the very first step of discipline.
Officially, the pastor is more frequently a part of church discipline at the time when the problem and/or sin is reported to him, God's undershepherd, for transmission "to the church."
2. May a pastor suspend a person from communion? Although a pastor may not himself excommunicate without the congregation, he may, in the interest of a person's spiritual welfare, refuse to commune one whose presence at the altar would be a source of offense to other members of the congregation, or one living in unrepentant sin who is still being dealt with on a personal basis by himself or others. If, for example, a member has embezzled church funds and the matter is known but the problem has not been resolved (there has been neither absolution on the one hand nor excommunication on the other), the pastor may insist that the party involved absent himself from the table of the Lord. This suspension must always be temporary, however until the matter has been resolved in one way or the other. Any appeal from such suspension must be acted on properly by the congregation, with the party involved, by virtue of the appeal thereby forfeiting any privacy that may have previously been his. Obviously the pastor has no right to suspend a member simply because the member has disagreed with him, for example in some matter of church polity where the Word of God has not spoken.
(We added here - k): In every case we have looked at excommunication, SIN is the issue whether by adultery, embezzlement, or the sin of seeking to create dissension/disaffection in the body/within the church.
In no case have we found any indication that attending (or even communing with) another church falls under the classification of a sin justifying grounds for excommunication.
Nor have we found any support of a pastor making this decision to excommunicate without a vote from the elders, council, and/or full congregation.
Based on this, the excommunication implemented solely by G can not be considered valid until it has gone through proper channels and voted on as outlined by standard church protocol.
7 June 2010
Mr. G
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear G -
We find that there is no way we can send the first letter without including a second with it.
There have been a number of things said from the pulpit in the past months which we have had difficulty grasping. One thing above all continually stands out, however, and we cannot leave this church without bringing it to your attention and that of the elders.
While you always preach the power of Christ crucified and resurrected, we find that often things are said which undermine that doctrine and the security of our salvation with other things.
Specifically, salvation is never based on one's own feelings or emotions. We can find no scripture justifying such preaching. Allowing emotion and the emotional state of the person to dictate whether they (believe they) are saved is leaving a huge gap for the person to fall into doubt and perhaps unbelief. Allowing emotion to dictate is choosing to allow ourselves to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” Ephesians 4:14
Life has a number of challenges and changes which effect our emotions. People tend to be tossed to and fro, and emotions change. God is unchangeable, and it is to him and his promises we must cling in order to survive.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death . . . What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? . . . Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? . . . For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8 : 1, 2, 31, 35, 38, 39 KJV
Emotion is not mentioned specifically in these verses, but neither can we find anything that justifies the idea that emotion on our part can rescind our salvation. Jesus himself said,
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10 : 27-29 KJV
Outside of the book of Psalms, we find no reference to “the joy of my salvation.”
We believe it dangerous to tell people that their salvation is dependent upon whether or not they feel the joy of their salvation, or if they fear death. Saying these things is manipulative and shaming. Producing unwarranted shame in the children of God does not serve a purpose. Unjustified feelings of guilt is nonproductive and brings fear of the loss of their salvation. Guilt or shame for real sin is legitimate. Guilt for emotion or doubt is harmful and serves no purpose and often much harm. Human emotion is fickle and cannot be trusted as a guide to the Christian life nor to the assurance of salvation.
Even if this was not the meaning of the finale of your sermon of 30 May, G, this is what was conveyed: My salvation is at the whim of my hormones, moods, feelings/emotions, and whether I am having a “good day.” Leaving the belief in my salvation up to my feeling that joy is setting up the people of God to be tossed about at the whims of these very human states. But we have been promised that nothing can snatch us out of the hand of Jesus, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That Christ crucified has pardoned us and nothing will stand between us and that salvation. To teach a doctrine contrary to this is to promote heresy.
Once a person has made a decision to align themselves with the crucified and resurrected Jesus and makes the choice to believe and live what is expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, the only thing that can rob them of their salvation is for that person to tell God that they no longer want a part of him or his kingdom. Encouraging people to believe that they can easily or lightly remove themselves from the kingdom of God is to encourage them to live in constant doubt, fear, and enslavement to the very things from which Jesus came to free them.
Specifically, I (Kathryn) never felt “joy in my salvation” for many, many years after I prayed to accept Jesus as my Savior and to enter my life, many years post-baptism. As a child, I often cried about this lack of joy and believed that it was an indication that somehow I was not saved, that God had not honored his promise, and that I would not join him in heaven. As I matured as a Christian, I came to recognize that God's promises are true regardless of what my emotions would tell me. Relying on an emotion as a gauge for my Christian walk or salvation status is a very dangerous thing. Rather than checking my emotions, I choose to cling to the Cross and the promises made. Happily, joyfully, recently for the first time I experienced this overwhelming joy. It is transient, however, and not a constant in my life. What IS constant is the promise of God. I cling to that and not to emotion.
Hearing sermons continually week after week which encourage the listener to question and doubt their salvation is not productive to the life of the Christian and we both strongly encourage the leadership of SITP to examine these teachings and where they lead. We are concerned that the way this has been preached, people have not been able to differentiate between opinion and gospel.
We were told when we joined this congregation that if at any time the “teachings are no longer Biblically sound” that we should leave. Holding the Bible as the compass, we cannot continue to support such preaching. Also hearing continually from the pulpit and in personal conversation that “the other churches” no longer honor Christ, we could not let this go without researching it further. The other churches we visited may have a form of worship with which we are not comfortable, we in no case found that the churches which hold to conservative beliefs have stopped preaching the power of the resurrected Jesus. We find it ironic that in researching the truth of these claims, we find ourselves excommunicated.
Please do know that we hold you and STIP in the highest of esteem. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you or on the church itself. We are merely very concerned of the direction of such preaching that result in bondage to emotion, doubt, and fear instead of encouraging the freedom Jesus came to provide for his people.
While we very much love this church and her people, we cannot support the doctrine that (certain) feelings are essential to salvation. To leave salvation to the whim of emotion is to negate the power of Christ crucified.
Sincerely, and with the love of Christ,
Duane and Kathryn
cc: elders
23
Ed. I had some problems with this in the new format & so had to delete it & repost. Sorry. Also, here are the comments, so i don't lose them:
It is an exact copy of what we sent to the pastor & three elders, with identifiers removed. We are praying that these letters will make a difference to the direction in which this church is headed. There is so much more we would like to say here, like the idea of cults, & other things preached which at least border on heresy, but i think we said the salient things. We haven't much hope that this will make a difference as the elders tend to rubber-stamp what is said by the pastor. We hope that the reality of what has been said will sink in, but haven't much belief it will happen. If they follow protocol, however, the whole voting congregation will have to vote on this.
7 June 2010
Mr. G
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear G -
At the time of your conversation with Kathryn on Friday 4 June, she readily agreed to your edicts without thinking through the implications and consequences. Duane was not even included in this discussion. He should have been the person to whom the call was made. We had already determined we would bring this issue to you and that Duane as the head of our household would be the one to do so.
If you were able to explain to the congregation in Sunday service why attending other churches is a serious offense worthy of ex-communication, we would very much like that explanation given to us as well. We were not aware that it was an offense against (the local) church, nor that it merited a punitive response, and we felt that we were doing this for a very good reason, which we would be happy to explain to the elders or the church at large. We have researched Lutheran doctrine and the usage of ex-communication as far as we were able and have found nothing that indicates such a response was warranted.
The only person of whom we are aware of having been ex-communicated from a church (Episcopal) was guilty of egregiously sinful behavior, deliberately spreading disaffection and dissent through the body of that church. Even so, the vestry of that church spent much time (months), pain, and prayer before they voted to follow that path. Every effort was made to bring the person involved back into fellowship before taking this very serious measure.
To our knowledge, we are not aware of egregious behavior on our part. We have worked very hard not to talk with other members of SITP of our concerns so as not to create disaffection and dissent in the body. Our understanding is that the decision to excommunicate us was made in a very rapid manner without the knowledge or vote of the elders or congregation. We are surprised and even shocked that such a weighty decision could be made with so little regard. We are also surprised in light of the weekly invitation to communion in the church bulletin that invites all Christians “who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament” to partake regardless of their church background. We took this invitation to mean that the church accepts open communion.
In our thinking, ex-communication is a very serious thing, not to be done quickly, lightly, or without the support of the church or church leaders. In every case we have found in our search to understand, it occurred in regard to unrepentant sin. This carries with it a very painful disgrace not easily accepted, especially without proper explanation. It concerns us that one man in the church has this much power and authority and has done this outside of proper channels and without check, disregarding proper protocol for such a step.
Please share the manner of our transgression, the nature of why it is misconduct, and what warrants ex-communication with us at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention. The Peace of the Lord be with you.
Sincerely,
Duane and Kathryn
cc: elders
Here is what Martin Luther has to say on the subject in his book, Luther's Small Catechism.
279. What great care must be taken in dealing with an openly unrepentant sinner?
*****The Christian congregation must carry out church discipline in love and patience.
See: (Mathew 18:15-17)(Galatians 6:1-2)(Ephesians 4:2-3)
280. What must the congregation finally do with openly unrepentant sinners?
*****The Christian congregation must exclude openly unrepentant sinners (excommunication).
See: (1 Corinthians 5:13)
281. By what authority does the congregation excommunicate openly unrepentant sinners?
*****Excommunication is authorized by Christ and is just as valid and certain, even in heaven, as if Christ our dear Lord dealt with us Himself.
See: (Mathew 18:18)
282. What is the duty of the called minister of Christ when the congregation has excommunicated a sinner?
*****The called minister of Christ must carry out the resolution of the congregation, that is, he must exclude the excommunicated person from the rights and privileges of a Christian.
283. What is the purpose of excommunication?
*****Excommunication is not intended to punish the sinner,
A. but to lead him or her to repentance and faith;
B. prevent him or her from leading others into sin.
See: (Mathew 12:20)(Acts 3:19)(Mathew 18:6)(1 Corinthians 5:6)
284. What is the duty of a congregation toward an excommunicated sinner who repents?
*****The congregation must forgive any excommunicated person who repents and receive him or her back into full fellowship.
See: (2 Corinthians 2:7-8)
The next section can be found online at this address:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/
A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
November 1985
(Section) V
Specific Questions Regarding Church Discipline
in the Christian Congregation
1. What is the role of the pastor in church discipline? The pastor's role varies. Members will approach him with problems, reports, or gossip. What course should they pursue with one who has grieved them? What, if anything, should be done with gossip about themselves or others? In answering these and similar questions, the pastor serves as counselor to his flock, directing them on the basis of Holy Scripture in their dealings with fellow Christians.
In some cases, for example, when a member of the congregation has been guilty of sin against him personally, when one despises the means of grace, or persists in seeking an unscriptural divorce, the pastor may be involved from the very first step of discipline.
Officially, the pastor is more frequently a part of church discipline at the time when the problem and/or sin is reported to him, God's undershepherd, for transmission "to the church."
2. May a pastor suspend a person from communion? Although a pastor may not himself excommunicate without the congregation, he may, in the interest of a person's spiritual welfare, refuse to commune one whose presence at the altar would be a source of offense to other members of the congregation, or one living in unrepentant sin who is still being dealt with on a personal basis by himself or others. If, for example, a member has embezzled church funds and the matter is known but the problem has not been resolved (there has been neither absolution on the one hand nor excommunication on the other), the pastor may insist that the party involved absent himself from the table of the Lord. This suspension must always be temporary, however until the matter has been resolved in one way or the other. Any appeal from such suspension must be acted on properly by the congregation, with the party involved, by virtue of the appeal thereby forfeiting any privacy that may have previously been his. Obviously the pastor has no right to suspend a member simply because the member has disagreed with him, for example in some matter of church polity where the Word of God has not spoken.
(We added here - k): In every case we have looked at excommunication, SIN is the issue whether by adultery, embezzlement, or the sin of seeking to create dissension/disaffection in the body/within the church.
In no case have we found any indication that attending (or even communing with) another church falls under the classification of a sin justifying grounds for excommunication.
Nor have we found any support of a pastor making this decision to excommunicate without a vote from the elders, council, and/or full congregation.
Based on this, the excommunication implemented solely by G can not be considered valid until it has gone through proper channels and voted on as outlined by standard church protocol.
7 June 2010
Mr. G
SITP Lutheran Church
Big Bear Lake, CA 92315
Dear G -
We find that there is no way we can send the first letter without including a second with it.
There have been a number of things said from the pulpit in the past months which we have had difficulty grasping. One thing above all continually stands out, however, and we cannot leave this church without bringing it to your attention and that of the elders.
While you always preach the power of Christ crucified and resurrected, we find that often things are said which undermine that doctrine and the security of our salvation with other things.
Specifically, salvation is never based on one's own feelings or emotions. We can find no scripture justifying such preaching. Allowing emotion and the emotional state of the person to dictate whether they (believe they) are saved is leaving a huge gap for the person to fall into doubt and perhaps unbelief. Allowing emotion to dictate is choosing to allow ourselves to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” Ephesians 4:14
Life has a number of challenges and changes which effect our emotions. People tend to be tossed to and fro, and emotions change. God is unchangeable, and it is to him and his promises we must cling in order to survive.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death . . . What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? . . . Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? . . . For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8 : 1, 2, 31, 35, 38, 39 KJV
Emotion is not mentioned specifically in these verses, but neither can we find anything that justifies the idea that emotion on our part can rescind our salvation. Jesus himself said,
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10 : 27-29 KJV
Outside of the book of Psalms, we find no reference to “the joy of my salvation.”
We believe it dangerous to tell people that their salvation is dependent upon whether or not they feel the joy of their salvation, or if they fear death. Saying these things is manipulative and shaming. Producing unwarranted shame in the children of God does not serve a purpose. Unjustified feelings of guilt is nonproductive and brings fear of the loss of their salvation. Guilt or shame for real sin is legitimate. Guilt for emotion or doubt is harmful and serves no purpose and often much harm. Human emotion is fickle and cannot be trusted as a guide to the Christian life nor to the assurance of salvation.
Even if this was not the meaning of the finale of your sermon of 30 May, G, this is what was conveyed: My salvation is at the whim of my hormones, moods, feelings/emotions, and whether I am having a “good day.” Leaving the belief in my salvation up to my feeling that joy is setting up the people of God to be tossed about at the whims of these very human states. But we have been promised that nothing can snatch us out of the hand of Jesus, that nothing can separate us from the love of God. That Christ crucified has pardoned us and nothing will stand between us and that salvation. To teach a doctrine contrary to this is to promote heresy.
Once a person has made a decision to align themselves with the crucified and resurrected Jesus and makes the choice to believe and live what is expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, the only thing that can rob them of their salvation is for that person to tell God that they no longer want a part of him or his kingdom. Encouraging people to believe that they can easily or lightly remove themselves from the kingdom of God is to encourage them to live in constant doubt, fear, and enslavement to the very things from which Jesus came to free them.
Specifically, I (Kathryn) never felt “joy in my salvation” for many, many years after I prayed to accept Jesus as my Savior and to enter my life, many years post-baptism. As a child, I often cried about this lack of joy and believed that it was an indication that somehow I was not saved, that God had not honored his promise, and that I would not join him in heaven. As I matured as a Christian, I came to recognize that God's promises are true regardless of what my emotions would tell me. Relying on an emotion as a gauge for my Christian walk or salvation status is a very dangerous thing. Rather than checking my emotions, I choose to cling to the Cross and the promises made. Happily, joyfully, recently for the first time I experienced this overwhelming joy. It is transient, however, and not a constant in my life. What IS constant is the promise of God. I cling to that and not to emotion.
Hearing sermons continually week after week which encourage the listener to question and doubt their salvation is not productive to the life of the Christian and we both strongly encourage the leadership of SITP to examine these teachings and where they lead. We are concerned that the way this has been preached, people have not been able to differentiate between opinion and gospel.
We were told when we joined this congregation that if at any time the “teachings are no longer Biblically sound” that we should leave. Holding the Bible as the compass, we cannot continue to support such preaching. Also hearing continually from the pulpit and in personal conversation that “the other churches” no longer honor Christ, we could not let this go without researching it further. The other churches we visited may have a form of worship with which we are not comfortable, we in no case found that the churches which hold to conservative beliefs have stopped preaching the power of the resurrected Jesus. We find it ironic that in researching the truth of these claims, we find ourselves excommunicated.
Please do know that we hold you and STIP in the highest of esteem. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you or on the church itself. We are merely very concerned of the direction of such preaching that result in bondage to emotion, doubt, and fear instead of encouraging the freedom Jesus came to provide for his people.
While we very much love this church and her people, we cannot support the doctrine that (certain) feelings are essential to salvation. To leave salvation to the whim of emotion is to negate the power of Christ crucified.
Sincerely, and with the love of Christ,
Duane and Kathryn
cc: elders
23
Ed. I had some problems with this in the new format & so had to delete it & repost. Sorry. Also, here are the comments, so i don't lose them:
- Amrita said...
- Well done Kathryn. Both letters are thoughtfully and sensitively worded . I back you in this. You do not deserve ex-communication. The Pastor and elders should have had a discussion with you before pronouncing this judgement.You never got a chance to express your feelings and opinion. This is unfair.Undemocratic. The light is about to go off. I will come back
- Wednesday, 09 June, 2010
- David said...
- well done, and artfully constructed. I can see that you have put much thought and a lot of love into these letters. We can pray that they have a good result
- Thursday, 10 June, 2010
- Jessica Renshaw said...
- Hallelujah and Amen!!!! God is glorified in your clear Biblical stand for truth, regardless of how it is received! But I'm glad you sent copies to board members other than G himself, so he can't just toss the evidence and pretend he never received it. These issues are too important and the consequences of the charges you make too serious for this to be swept under a rug.
- Thursday, 10 June, 2010
- Amrita said...
- Do tell us if you get a response from the church board.
- Thursday, 10 June, 2010
- David said...
- i was musing on how CLOSED societies and DARK religions keep their people with walls or the threat of punishment for 'going outside' the group. How is this 'shunning' different than imprisonment or lashings in the muslim world? I am sorry for SITP - they are good people, with a difficult leader.
- Friday, 11 June, 2010
05 June 2010
Shock is rather numbing
The reality of what was said set in a bit later for me.
We have been ex-communicated. So i looked it up to see what it means, & also tried to find it in a Lutheran context. The only person i've ever known to be ex-communicated before (& until then i didn't know it was still done) was guilty of egregious behavior. As far as i know, the only thing we did was to visit other churches (in part because of the unbelievable claims made from the pulpit of how no other churches are honoring Jesus anymore). I would like this explained to me.
Duane didn't like some of what G preached, but it didn't eat at him as it did me. However, he has not taken this well. Meaning that while he didn't have a problem with this church before, he does indeed now.
While i have no desire to have my membership "saved," i very much would like to have the justification for this explained to me. Truthfully, if this is G's whim with no church (doctrine) history but the elders back him, that moves the status of this congregation from "church" to "cult" in my book.
So, i had thought of trying to get an explanation out of G, since he said he will be preaching this on Sunday. But i don't think that is the best way to go. As he mentioned bringing the elders into the conversation, i think drafting a letter to him with copies to the elders is probably wise. Again, this is not to "save" my membership, but in the interest of fairness. And if the elders back his decision, i will be shocked to learn i've been a member of a cult for the past 3 years.
22
We have been ex-communicated. So i looked it up to see what it means, & also tried to find it in a Lutheran context. The only person i've ever known to be ex-communicated before (& until then i didn't know it was still done) was guilty of egregious behavior. As far as i know, the only thing we did was to visit other churches (in part because of the unbelievable claims made from the pulpit of how no other churches are honoring Jesus anymore). I would like this explained to me.
Duane didn't like some of what G preached, but it didn't eat at him as it did me. However, he has not taken this well. Meaning that while he didn't have a problem with this church before, he does indeed now.
While i have no desire to have my membership "saved," i very much would like to have the justification for this explained to me. Truthfully, if this is G's whim with no church (doctrine) history but the elders back him, that moves the status of this congregation from "church" to "cult" in my book.
So, i had thought of trying to get an explanation out of G, since he said he will be preaching this on Sunday. But i don't think that is the best way to go. As he mentioned bringing the elders into the conversation, i think drafting a letter to him with copies to the elders is probably wise. Again, this is not to "save" my membership, but in the interest of fairness. And if the elders back his decision, i will be shocked to learn i've been a member of a cult for the past 3 years.
22
04 June 2010
Resolved - & relieved
Yesterday after writing, i called G (the Lutheran Pastor) & made an appointment for us to meet with him for lunch next Saturday. Except Duane informed me he wouldn't be available due to SAR commitments. So i intended to call G back & reschedule, but looking at Duane's calendar, it wasn't going to be easy to find a date.
I got a call from G today. He said he had an uncomfortable conversation/question. Someone had told him we were attending other churches, which took him quite by surprise. Is it true?
Yes, i said that was one of the things we wanted to talk to him about but hadn't known how to approach it. He said that if we want a meeting now, it will have to be in the presence of all the elders.
He also said that we will be welcome to worship & have fellowship at the church now, but we are no longer able to take communion or to vote at meetings.
"That's fine." I responded.
We actually had a better conversation than he & i have had for a long time. I told him i'm very disturbed by some of the doctrine being preached (& that the issue is mine, not Duane's). He told that although we are attending another church doesn't mean that we "are going to hell" & that while other churches have different forms, that doesn't mean they are wrong. I did not point out to him that this is, well, not 180 degrees from what he has said from the pulpit, but it is about 150 (maybe 170) off.
He also said that if i'm struggling with the doctrine preached, that his church is not the one for me. It was all very cordial. My adrenals didn't go crazy (as often happens for me when i'm confronted). My heart rate didn't go up nor did my breathing get shallow. I did not confront him with anything but simply said that we wanted him to know that the reason we are leaving is not because we're angry over an incident. (There have been plenty of incidents, but largely they have happened a day or two after we have decided to make a big change. The incidents only confirmed what we had already decided.)
He said he will be preaching on this on the coming Sunday because the folks who knew we were attending other churches didn't see a problem with it. (Honestly, we don't either.) He said he was more disturbed that they saw no problem with it than to find that we've been doing it.
I would, frankly, be interested in knowing what he says, for i don't understand the issue.
Also, it occurs to me that while he has preached from the pulpit a lot - negatively - about other churches & how they are not "doing it right" or that they've removed the crosses (which we have found not to be true) that he is preventing people from learning the truth about this if attending another church means the threat of ex-communication. We didn't know that it was an ex-communicable sin to attend another church. We were uncomfortable because he didn't know, but didn't know how to tell him. Also, we know some folks who are "members" - they grew up in the church & show up maybe twice a year. If they should find this church not satisfying, they are being prevented from attending another?
I think we both are a little stunned that we have been told that we can attend but not receive communion. (This Lutheran church is far more like a Catholic church than they are ever willing to admit.) We knew that we might be told we weren't welcome there any more. But attendance without communion is a surprise.
I have an old bulletin here. I think the wording has been changed some, but this one states: "Holy Communion is being celebrated here today. We welcome those who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament." This is stated in some form in each & every bulletin.
Duane said, "So anyone coming in off the street can take communion there, but we can't?"
Well, it is just like their stand on confirmation. We disagree with this church quite a bit on confirmation. First off, for a long time they didn't even consider someone for confirmation until they were 14, then 12. Duane & i strongly feel some children are ready for it long before then. When we expressed this opinion, the response from the church committee was, "Well, we can't do it any younger than that, or we'd be just like the Catholics!" *Um, excuse me?*
I believe that confirmation or not, adults can reach an age & readiness to make their own decision whether or not to receive communion apart from confirmation. This church evidently didn't have anyone to do confirmation for many years, & there are some young adults (in their mid-20s now) who were raised in this church, didn't go thru confirmation, & still on occasion attend. They can not take communion. But any teen visiting from off the hill & who attends, can take communion with no questions asked, confirmation status is not questioned.
Because the church knows the ones who grew up here, but doesn't know the others. I'm sorry, that is just wrong.
That is the situation in which we are currently.
Because a liturgical service with communion is important to us, this church, while telling us we are still free to attend, has shut its doors to us.
Tomorrow will be interesting as there is a memorial service for someone who was important to us. I'm not going to skip it because of this.
While over all it went well & it made things easy for us - i now feel free to do as i need to do without being afraid of what the repercussions could be - i guess i am somewhat nonplussed.
21
I got a call from G today. He said he had an uncomfortable conversation/question. Someone had told him we were attending other churches, which took him quite by surprise. Is it true?
Yes, i said that was one of the things we wanted to talk to him about but hadn't known how to approach it. He said that if we want a meeting now, it will have to be in the presence of all the elders.
He also said that we will be welcome to worship & have fellowship at the church now, but we are no longer able to take communion or to vote at meetings.
"That's fine." I responded.
We actually had a better conversation than he & i have had for a long time. I told him i'm very disturbed by some of the doctrine being preached (& that the issue is mine, not Duane's). He told that although we are attending another church doesn't mean that we "are going to hell" & that while other churches have different forms, that doesn't mean they are wrong. I did not point out to him that this is, well, not 180 degrees from what he has said from the pulpit, but it is about 150 (maybe 170) off.
He also said that if i'm struggling with the doctrine preached, that his church is not the one for me. It was all very cordial. My adrenals didn't go crazy (as often happens for me when i'm confronted). My heart rate didn't go up nor did my breathing get shallow. I did not confront him with anything but simply said that we wanted him to know that the reason we are leaving is not because we're angry over an incident. (There have been plenty of incidents, but largely they have happened a day or two after we have decided to make a big change. The incidents only confirmed what we had already decided.)
He said he will be preaching on this on the coming Sunday because the folks who knew we were attending other churches didn't see a problem with it. (Honestly, we don't either.) He said he was more disturbed that they saw no problem with it than to find that we've been doing it.
I would, frankly, be interested in knowing what he says, for i don't understand the issue.
Also, it occurs to me that while he has preached from the pulpit a lot - negatively - about other churches & how they are not "doing it right" or that they've removed the crosses (which we have found not to be true) that he is preventing people from learning the truth about this if attending another church means the threat of ex-communication. We didn't know that it was an ex-communicable sin to attend another church. We were uncomfortable because he didn't know, but didn't know how to tell him. Also, we know some folks who are "members" - they grew up in the church & show up maybe twice a year. If they should find this church not satisfying, they are being prevented from attending another?
I think we both are a little stunned that we have been told that we can attend but not receive communion. (This Lutheran church is far more like a Catholic church than they are ever willing to admit.) We knew that we might be told we weren't welcome there any more. But attendance without communion is a surprise.
I have an old bulletin here. I think the wording has been changed some, but this one states: "Holy Communion is being celebrated here today. We welcome those who share our Biblical faith and understanding of the sacrament." This is stated in some form in each & every bulletin.
Duane said, "So anyone coming in off the street can take communion there, but we can't?"
Well, it is just like their stand on confirmation. We disagree with this church quite a bit on confirmation. First off, for a long time they didn't even consider someone for confirmation until they were 14, then 12. Duane & i strongly feel some children are ready for it long before then. When we expressed this opinion, the response from the church committee was, "Well, we can't do it any younger than that, or we'd be just like the Catholics!" *Um, excuse me?*
I believe that confirmation or not, adults can reach an age & readiness to make their own decision whether or not to receive communion apart from confirmation. This church evidently didn't have anyone to do confirmation for many years, & there are some young adults (in their mid-20s now) who were raised in this church, didn't go thru confirmation, & still on occasion attend. They can not take communion. But any teen visiting from off the hill & who attends, can take communion with no questions asked, confirmation status is not questioned.
Because the church knows the ones who grew up here, but doesn't know the others. I'm sorry, that is just wrong.
That is the situation in which we are currently.
Because a liturgical service with communion is important to us, this church, while telling us we are still free to attend, has shut its doors to us.
Tomorrow will be interesting as there is a memorial service for someone who was important to us. I'm not going to skip it because of this.
While over all it went well & it made things easy for us - i now feel free to do as i need to do without being afraid of what the repercussions could be - i guess i am somewhat nonplussed.
21
03 June 2010
How will it play out?
I don't know how the church issues is going to play out ultimately. We've talked about not burning bridges, but we are ready to rescind our membership at the Lutheran church. That does seem to me like we are making an irreversible decision there.
If i were more like Duane, we wouldn't need to do this. He is much less effected by it than am i. He hears the things that bother me, sees the incongruities, doesn't like them, & can walk away because in his mind they have no authority over him. I wish i was more like that.
Yeah, i'm still angry over things that have happened & yeah, i want to go on & on about them.
However, i am pretty certain that our choosing not to attend that church anymore is the right thing to do. I don't think it is me being petty or vindictive.
Here is why: When i think of what has happened, i get mad. But just as overwhelmingly, i pray for the pastor & the church. I hurt that he believes & teaches as he does. I desperately desire for him not to be caught down whatever foxhole he is in. And i pray more. I also pray for love for him.
Sounding like shades of Yoda, Duane & i both see "Much fear in him." I think many of the things he is preaching or choosing to do is directly related to that fear. I think he yelled at the congregation about joy because he is lacking in that joy. I think he makes fun of marriage because he fears his own is lacking. I think he focuses much on the loss of heaven because he fears losing/missing heaven. I think he denied allowing me to do massage because 1. he's angry with me for not attending regularly anymore & 2. he greatly fears losing the church.
Fear is an enemy to faith. I don't think doubt is such an enemy, but fear is.
I feel helpless in this, for i cannot go to him & say, "I did experience the joy of my salvation & being part of God's family. It didn't come thru being yelled at or being shamed. It is a transiet feeling & i probably won't experience it continually or fully until i am in the presence of God. Please accept this & stop yelling."
And, "I deeply wish that you would experience confidence in your life so that you don't have to fear coming before God & can know that you are a child pleasing to him. Please stop telling the congregation that salvation is not something they can be assured of. Please stop passing on fear. Please learn to live in the knowledge that God loves you & that no one can pluck you from his hand."
And, "I sense that you fear that your faith is incomplete. I wonder if you are questioning your life as a Christian & are afraid of feeling doubts. I sense that much of the negativity of other churches & the criticisms are because you are questioning the life you have & your faith? I wonder if the narrow, rigid path you preach is because of the fear?"
So much more than this. When we deliberately began to "church hop" in January, it was with prayers for this Lutheran church. When i felt such joy & passion in March after a sermon & meditating on it, my desire was not to attend the church where i felt that but that the same passion & joy could be experienced at the Lutheran church. I deeply long for them to experience this too, & it is with prayers of longing that i pray for that church.
Don't get me wrong. I'm still hurt & angry about recent events. I still have a tendency to be critical & lacking in charity. I want to lash out angrily & point out the mistakes i've seen & the I'm tending to say, "I wish G (the pastor) would just mature in his Christian walk," as if i have achieved that! :P
Also, i honor the man. A conversation with my Sis Elsa reminded me of this recently. I used to go in & have conversations with G. And at the time i said, "He is the most unique combination of arrogant & humble i have ever met." He would listen to what i said, & would receive it graciously. Sometimes he would make changes. Sometimes we disagreed & left it at that. But i could have these conversations. I even enjoyed them. He is a very intelligent man.
I stopped doing that. It reached a point where i felt that what i had to say was just too critical & that further conversation would be pointless. That we couldn't continue on. It felt like i was simply doing nothing but going in & complaining & that i couldn't keep hitting my head against the wall. Also, frankly, i didn't like the feeling that by seeking conversations with him, i was submitting to his authority. So i stopped talking, stopped having conversations, stopped communication.
I was starting to feel that this is a rambling, pointless post.
I have changed my mind about this. I think the problem might be that i gave up on communication. I feel like i can't say this well or in the manner i mean it. When marriages begin to fail, often the problem is that the two partners have stopped talking. They've "given up" or think they know everything the other one is going to say already. When a partnership in business happens, i think often there is this lack of communication, also.
Because i don't like conflict & tend to run from it, & it seemed that most of my conversations with G were conflict, i stopped trying. Relationships die when communication stops. It is like when you stop watering a flower. I need to take responsibility for that.
It is doubtful to me that we (i) will be able to continue in this church. However, i think i do need to have at least one last conversation with G, & apologize for stopping the "watering" of our relationship. I think, that just in the writing of this post, i can see that i hold much of the responsibility for my inability to be in this church, because i gave up on it.
This conversation won't "fix" what i feel is wrong. I don't have that ability or authority. That belongs to God. However, i do feel that i can leave with the relationship somewhat still intact if i explain the problems with which i'm struggling. It MIGHT just be that we would still be able to attend there sometimes.
20
If i were more like Duane, we wouldn't need to do this. He is much less effected by it than am i. He hears the things that bother me, sees the incongruities, doesn't like them, & can walk away because in his mind they have no authority over him. I wish i was more like that.
Yeah, i'm still angry over things that have happened & yeah, i want to go on & on about them.
However, i am pretty certain that our choosing not to attend that church anymore is the right thing to do. I don't think it is me being petty or vindictive.
Here is why: When i think of what has happened, i get mad. But just as overwhelmingly, i pray for the pastor & the church. I hurt that he believes & teaches as he does. I desperately desire for him not to be caught down whatever foxhole he is in. And i pray more. I also pray for love for him.
Sounding like shades of Yoda, Duane & i both see "Much fear in him." I think many of the things he is preaching or choosing to do is directly related to that fear. I think he yelled at the congregation about joy because he is lacking in that joy. I think he makes fun of marriage because he fears his own is lacking. I think he focuses much on the loss of heaven because he fears losing/missing heaven. I think he denied allowing me to do massage because 1. he's angry with me for not attending regularly anymore & 2. he greatly fears losing the church.
Fear is an enemy to faith. I don't think doubt is such an enemy, but fear is.
I feel helpless in this, for i cannot go to him & say, "I did experience the joy of my salvation & being part of God's family. It didn't come thru being yelled at or being shamed. It is a transiet feeling & i probably won't experience it continually or fully until i am in the presence of God. Please accept this & stop yelling."
And, "I deeply wish that you would experience confidence in your life so that you don't have to fear coming before God & can know that you are a child pleasing to him. Please stop telling the congregation that salvation is not something they can be assured of. Please stop passing on fear. Please learn to live in the knowledge that God loves you & that no one can pluck you from his hand."
And, "I sense that you fear that your faith is incomplete. I wonder if you are questioning your life as a Christian & are afraid of feeling doubts. I sense that much of the negativity of other churches & the criticisms are because you are questioning the life you have & your faith? I wonder if the narrow, rigid path you preach is because of the fear?"
So much more than this. When we deliberately began to "church hop" in January, it was with prayers for this Lutheran church. When i felt such joy & passion in March after a sermon & meditating on it, my desire was not to attend the church where i felt that but that the same passion & joy could be experienced at the Lutheran church. I deeply long for them to experience this too, & it is with prayers of longing that i pray for that church.
Don't get me wrong. I'm still hurt & angry about recent events. I still have a tendency to be critical & lacking in charity. I want to lash out angrily & point out the mistakes i've seen & the I'm tending to say, "I wish G (the pastor) would just mature in his Christian walk," as if i have achieved that! :P
Also, i honor the man. A conversation with my Sis Elsa reminded me of this recently. I used to go in & have conversations with G. And at the time i said, "He is the most unique combination of arrogant & humble i have ever met." He would listen to what i said, & would receive it graciously. Sometimes he would make changes. Sometimes we disagreed & left it at that. But i could have these conversations. I even enjoyed them. He is a very intelligent man.
I stopped doing that. It reached a point where i felt that what i had to say was just too critical & that further conversation would be pointless. That we couldn't continue on. It felt like i was simply doing nothing but going in & complaining & that i couldn't keep hitting my head against the wall. Also, frankly, i didn't like the feeling that by seeking conversations with him, i was submitting to his authority. So i stopped talking, stopped having conversations, stopped communication.
I was starting to feel that this is a rambling, pointless post.
I have changed my mind about this. I think the problem might be that i gave up on communication. I feel like i can't say this well or in the manner i mean it. When marriages begin to fail, often the problem is that the two partners have stopped talking. They've "given up" or think they know everything the other one is going to say already. When a partnership in business happens, i think often there is this lack of communication, also.
Because i don't like conflict & tend to run from it, & it seemed that most of my conversations with G were conflict, i stopped trying. Relationships die when communication stops. It is like when you stop watering a flower. I need to take responsibility for that.
It is doubtful to me that we (i) will be able to continue in this church. However, i think i do need to have at least one last conversation with G, & apologize for stopping the "watering" of our relationship. I think, that just in the writing of this post, i can see that i hold much of the responsibility for my inability to be in this church, because i gave up on it.
This conversation won't "fix" what i feel is wrong. I don't have that ability or authority. That belongs to God. However, i do feel that i can leave with the relationship somewhat still intact if i explain the problems with which i'm struggling. It MIGHT just be that we would still be able to attend there sometimes.
20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Kathryn
- Wife, wanted to be a mama - not going to happen, massage therapist, child of God. I can be emailed at: 4Kat2009@gmail.com