From The Bishop's Blog:
Should you depart your faith community when you disagree with the spiritual leader? In this second week after the headlines broke regarding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments, that question looms large. Senator Clinton has implied that she would know what to do in such a situation. She said we cannot pick our family but we can pick our pastor. Senator Clinton says she would leave the Church in the face of such disagreement. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I think I hear her saying that if you do not like the preacher, go find one you like. If you do not like what the minister is saying (or doing) go find one that fits you. I imagine that many in this country agree with Senator Clinton. I think she is devilishly wrong and her advice gives power to spiritual and emotional immaturity rather than challenging people to grow in maturity.
That's exactly right. I agree with Bishop Jenkins that Senator Clinton is wrong. In fact, I was amazed at the whole news frenzy about the Reverend Wright's sermon. Unfortunately, the frenzy is probably not over. I was not offended at all by the sermon, but that's not the subject of this post.
Senator Obama has made clear his disagreement with certain of the words of the Reverend Wright, but that's not enough. He is now asked by Senator Clinton to break with his long-term pastor, because he doesn't agree with everything he says. How many of us would keep a long-term association with a pastor, if we thought it necessary to agree with everything our pastor says? We'd be wandering around ceaselessly, looking for a pastor whose views exactly match ours. As soon as we discovered a point of disagreement, we'd have to move along to search for a perfect match.
I thought the best thing to come out of that overblown event around Pastor Wright was the fact that Senator Obama could disagree with Pastor Wright and yet remain in relationship, fellowship and communion with him. This action spoke loudly of good news to me. I was elated when Senator Obama did not choose to walk apart from a man who has been an important part of his life. Senator Obama’s decision not to separate from Pastor Wright spoke to me of a maturity in which disagreement need not lead to leave-taking. The fragility of people that requires a high degree of satisfaction and agreement in order to sustain a relationship was challenged by Senator Obama’s decision. I think Senator Obama demonstrated to the world a high degree of tolerance for his own discomfort and that of others. Such tolerance of discomfort and even pain is necessary in a great leader.
"Overblown event" says it all. I'd have thought a lot less of Senator Obama had he severed his ties with the Reverend Wright.
I urge you to read the rest of Bishop Jenkins blog post.
Hmmm.... I strongly disagreed with Clinton's remarks, but not for the reasons Bishop Jenkins gives.
ReplyDeleteI do firmly believe that one should consider going to a different church based on serious differences with the pastor, especially if those differences impair the functioning of the local church or would do violence in some way, emotional or spiritual even, of the individual involved. Bishop Jenkins is absolutely correct that one should not leave a church lightly or simply over the fact of some disagreement or even discomfort with those with opposing views, whether they be held by the pastor or the parishioners. Church should be community, not just a place where one sits and listens to someone preach what one already believes and to move on to someplace where someone does it as well or better.
But on the other hand, sometimes it is really best to move on. What comes to mind is the story of Judith (at her blog - link somewhere at MP's) about recently reaching the painful decision that she had to leave because of her deep disagreement with the rector and the direction he was taking the parish. I had a similar experience years ago and it does make me empathize with all those in similar situations, regardless of their beliefs. The notion of my-church-right-or-wrong is very dangerous, I think, and I say that having had long conversations with people in the congregation I once left, including a woman -- an ardent feminist -- who hung with the same group years before when they had a rabidly patriarchal Lutheran pastor, but only could manage doing so by frequent visits to other churches to curb her negative feelings and to worship in places without such conflict. She did not recommend what she did for me -- not at all -- just helped me sort through my reasons for staying and leaving and in the end supported my decision to leave.
It's a fine and difficult line to draw -- when to leave and when to stay. However, in the real world, I think it's kind of like divorce -- we imagine that all sorts of people make the decision lightly and/or for all the wrong reasons, but usually it is more complex than that. Although I don't disagree with all that Bishop Jenkins says -- church should be first and foremost a community that ministers, not a place focused on the minister, whether one agrees with him or her nor not -- I think the real problem with what Clinton had to say was that it was so flippant.
Actually, I think one can and must choose both family and church -- both requiring a lot of tolerance and good will and a desire to stick together ALMOST no matter what, but both sometimes requiring separation, temporary or permanent. To suggest that someone like Obama should have left his church because he might disagree with the pastor's views on Israel or the AIDs conspiracy is ridiculous -- as if someone who is or is likely to be a political candidate should vet their pastor to make sure they don't say anything controversial. Sounds to me like Clinton has spent very little time doing "real" church in a very long time. OCICBW. In any event, she should have defended Obama's religious freedoms and those of all the candidates -- which would have been both ethically right and politically smart.
BUT... I do very much appreciate what Bishop Jenkins has to say, especially given his context in TEC. I do believe that he is a person of faith and integrity whose behavior starkly contrasts with the two-timing, two-faced stuff from Bishop Howe. We as a church do need to work to hang together and not be anxious to jump ship whenever we disagree with those in authority or find ourselves on the losing side of this or that vote. But when people feel they really must leave, then they should do so honorably as individuals following their own consciences rather than trying to subvert what they leave behind. But that... is another matter.
Klady, I don't believe that Bp. Jenkins was expressing blanket disapproval of anyone ever leaving a parish or a denomination. Of course, I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteyes, as klady said, this is a complex issue. We've all experienced people who just get mad and leave, because they don't like the looks of the pastor or he/she said something wrong (and sometimes even minor things!) (it's amazing what people take offense at).
ReplyDeleteBut there are times when you realize that you and your church have become so profoundly different that the most truthful thing you can do is change.
I don't think that was the case at Obama's church. I think a lot of good work is being done there.
No, I don't think Jenkins was expressing blanket disapproval either. He said some good things -- I just don't think it was really responsive to what was wrong with Clinton's comments.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as offensive was not the notion that one can choose one's pastor but rather that Clinton considered that statement to be some kind of intelligent or critical response to the hoopla about Rev. Wright. As far as I could tell, there was very little that Rev. Wright said that should trouble anyone (especially not the things God might damn America over). But if it's stuff like the AIDs conspiracy theory or anti-Israeli views or whatever -- assuming those are wrong, that's not the kind of stuff one leaves church over, and, in any event, it's extremely unlikely that anyone who thinks for themselves about any social or political issues is going to find themselves in total agreement with their pastor (or their spouse, boss, family members, neighbors, etc.). Only someone who is extraordinarily jaded and political about religion and running for office would snipe and say "well, you got the pastor you chose" instead of "I stand by my pastor and my congregation as well because we are a community of faith, not a group of identical-thinking people -- everyone, including politicians, should be able to choose one's faith community and exercise their Constitutional right to practice their religion as they see fit" ... or something to that effect. The way I heard it, Clinton was not suggesting that Obama leave his pastor and congregation if he didn't agree with his views -- rather she was implying that neither faith nor loyalty nor community mission should have been an issue, that one should choose a church as if it were simply any other organization with a specific political or social agenda one signs on to support (or not). No wonder she is schmoozing with Scaife.
I left a denomination that I belonged to for 60 years. That was painful, but I believe it was the right thing for me to do. However, it's not something to be undertaken lightly.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Clinton had in mind, except to score political points. Hers was a completely shallow comment. I would have considered it shameful of Obama to have publically broken ties with Wright.
P.S. I don't mean to hog space here again - just thinking out loud again. I really liked what Jenkins had to say about relationships not being disposable. I think that is key and is precisely what I struggled very hard with when I left both a congregation and a denomination at once.
ReplyDeleteI'm just curious, though, about how you feel and understand relations with a particular pastor or parish in the abstract in light of your background as a Roman Catholic. My understanding is that Catholics cannot change parishes by choice, only with permission by the authorities and that one can be arbitrarily prohibited from transferring from one parish to another within the same community or area. One also has no choice who is assigned as pastor (although that is true of the Methodists as well), so the idea is that one has a home parish and one stays regardless who is the pastor or pastors or how long they serve.
I understand those are the rules and if I were Catholic I would have to abide by them. But Protestants, even "spiritually and emotionally mature" ones (whatever that means), do not necessarily disagree with the notion that "if you do not like the preacher, go find one you like." Is it devilish if you and your family leave because you think the preacher's reading of the Gospel is seriously off base or if he or she is sowing dissension or negativity? Yes if one hasn't looked closely at one's own faults, seriously considered the merits of the pastor's views or methods, or considered what effect one's departure might have on others, but no, not if, as Diane says, "you and your church have become so profoundly different that the most truthful thing you can do is change." I think that can happen on a parish or congregation level, not just that of a denomination, and sometimes the solution to the problem involves finding the right faith community locally, regardless of which denomination it is.
Does that sound crazy, bizarre, or absurdly self-centered to an ex-Roman Catholic? Just curious.
My understanding is that Catholics cannot change parishes by choice, only with permission by the authorities and that one can be arbitrarily prohibited from transferring from one parish to another within the same community or area.
ReplyDeleteKlady, if such a rule still exists (and it did at one time), it has not been strictly enforced for some time. I moved from one parish to another in the RCC without asking anyone's permission. I know others do the same.
It bothered me that the neither the parishioners, nor their representatives, had a say in who was appointed pastor. That's too much top-down governance to suit me. On the other hand, in the congregational churches, the pastors have very little in the way of security in their positions. If a person or a clique turns against the pastor, sometimes it doesn't take much to have the pastor ousted on flimsy grounds - we just don't like you. I actually think the Episcopal Church gets the authority-democracy division about right.
Does that sound crazy, bizarre, or absurdly self-centered to an ex-Roman Catholic? Just curious.
Not at all, Klady. I would never suggest that a person stay in a relationship with a parish or a pastor with whom one has such profound disagreements that little or no accommodation is to be found. Sometimes it is best to move on.
Also, I would not choose the words "devilishly wrong" about Clinton's statement, either.
What klady said.
ReplyDeleteI do applaud Obama's decision not to throw his pastor under the train, because I have read articles which place the pastor's comments into a fuller context (I wish I could quote some of that for you, but I don't have the citations right here. I think it was yesterday's Philadelphia (Pa.) Inquirer, Annette John-Hall's column, but the gray matter is not cooperating tonight).
I did leave my parish, not just because I had a disagreement with the pastor, but because, under his leadership, the whole worship experience had become painful and inauthentic for me. I don't think that's true in Obama's case, from what I've been able to gather.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Judith, I believe that there are times when the right thing to do is to go. After all, I went.
ReplyDeleteI never understood what the fuss was about with Wright's sermon. He was a pastor for 30 years, and now we are to judge him on sound bites from a few sermons. That seems very wrong.
Thanks for putting in your two cents.
My problem with Jenkins is the linking of devilish and Clinton --- I think that is unfortunately how many perceive Hillary Clinton as a devil or witch (not in the good sense of paganism) and it is all about sexism. I left our church here in my home town because although I could have fought it - I was told not to set foot on the property. I disagreed with the rector's actions and would do it again.
ReplyDeleteAnn, neither Obama nor Clinton was my first or second choice for a candidate, and when my favorites went down, the two were on an equal footing, so far as I was concerned. But Clinton has sunk a great deal in my estimation as time passed. Her comment was wrong, but I agree that "devilishly wrong" is out of line.
ReplyDelete"Both Hannity and Ingraham have been very vocal and very public in their support for our war efforts and in their support for our troops. Their support has not been just in word, but also in deed and they are both to be highly commended for their unwavering support. But their actions and words are so diametrically opposed to the position of the Catholic Church that I become very confused about allegiances"
ReplyDeleteSean Hannity AND Laura Ingraham Hypocritical on Obama's Rev
All she had in mind was political point scoring. Damn what might be reasonable, just, educational or rewarding, lets just be foul towards each other.
ReplyDeleteJaajoe, thanks for your input.
ReplyDeleteAll she had in mind was political point scoring.
TheMe, ya think?
I think Mr. Jenkins is the one trying to make a political point.
ReplyDeleteWhat is shameful is to judge another person's spirituality based on their actions in a political campaign. That's just nuts.
I don't think any of us know Senator Clinton well enough to assess her spiritual maturity and if one of us does... woe to that arrogant soul... we shouldn't be blogging about it!
It seems decidedly UNAnglican to me for one of us to suppose that we know what is in another person's heart; and I find it especially odious to see that kind of behavior in one of our bishops. Not that he's the first or last, of course.
Lindy, I don't trust Clinton at all any longer. I don't know what's in her heart, but she has taken the low road in her campaign. By her words and by her actions, she has done enough to cause me to turn away from her candidacy in disgust. I don't put a lot of faith in any politician, but I certainly expected better of Clinton. She comes across as just plain mean.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the "devilish" characterization, but I can't see that much beyond political calculation went into her comments. And they seem to have backfired, anyway. Can you tell I'm angry with her?
If I may stand up for my bishop, here's the entire sentence: "I think she is devilishly wrong and her advice gives power to spiritual and emotional immaturity rather than challenging people to grow in maturity." He probably should have used another word than "devilishly," but the rest of it is sound advice.
ReplyDeleteYo, Ormonde!
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you are angry with her. I really don't see how she has been so diabolical. I agree that Obama is more likable and prettier too. But it's not a popularity contest. I'm still for her.
ReplyDeleteLindy, I didn't say she was diabolical. She could be the nominee or Obama could be the nominee for the Democratic party. Let her save the low road politics for the campaign against the Republican candidate. She is not helping herself, and she is doing the Republicans work for them against Obama.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see the two Dem candidates begin right now to campaign against John McCain, instead of against each other.
Oh, and FWIW, I think that everyone who is calling for Clinton to drop out should stop, right this minute. That's for her to decide.
ReplyDeleteRight on Grandmère Mimi, they should be campaigning against GW Bush's twin brother, John McCain.
ReplyDeleteThink how much more like the Democratic candidate each would look, if they campaigned against John McCain, instead of against each other.
ReplyDelete