Friday, September 18, 2009

Fear and Loathing at the Church Council Meeting*

[*This is a narrative. For those who are not of a generation to catch it, there were several books by Hunter S. Thompson named Fear and Loathing in... This title is intended as parody in some respect, and is not meant to express any belief that there was "loathing" at the Church Council meeting, though there was perhaps some “I really would just as soon be somewhere else.”]

I was not looking forward to the Church Council meeting. There had been an ongoing project, several years in the making with much work done in recent months, to evaluate the use of our building in light of a diminished budget, and it had spawned rumors, misunderstandings and hard feelings. Previous meetings on the subject had the inevitable cases of people hearing what they wished to hear, regardless of what was said. Some folks would interrupt others to state things along the lines of “what you are saying then is...” when it was obviously not what was being said, or when it was at least obvious that the first speaker had not said enough that anyone else could make any interpretation of their statements. Folk fell back on technicalities in rules of order (usually misstating them) or used “over the top” (in my arrogant opinion, of course) rhetoric. It might as well have been a political rally. Each approached the meetings with the unfailing belief that they were morally right; an odd belief in my mind when one is talking about building use as opposed to moral or theological issues. I have thought in the past that if we were to get as passionate about our one-on-one relationship with Christ as we seem to get about our one-on-one relationships with our building, our worship music or our meeting time (a passion that is also dependent on one-on-one relationships with the local sports teams’ schedules,) we might be happier and have better insight into how to serve God in response to the love we would then feel. Ah, well.

I’m not wanting (or maybe I am, alas) to stow thrones (if you’ve heard the old joke, throw stones if you haven’t) since I get passionate about my beliefs and causes as well. This was just not such a time. It did not matter to me one iota if the roof was fixed first, ramps were worked on, classes were moved, classes were not moved, elevators built with doors opening into walls or empty space (sort of an inside joke here, sorry) or whatever. We did not have the money for everything and we had several groups who felt that they were best qualified to decide how what we did have should be spent. Fine. I was there because, a) I was a member of the council and, even with no strong opinion on the priorities of use of the funds, I should be there, and, b) I had promised to record the meeting. But I was not happy to be there. I would back whatever decision the rest made and felt like I had no dog in the fight. (Have I used enough metaphors yet? Well, this isn’t over by a long shot.)

Then a wonderful thing happened. A member of the council, for want of a better name we will call him “Jim”, proposed that we use the money we had in our capital funds to fix an urgent need, a new roof, then that we stop, step back, and look at the entire church building in consultation with an expert or experts, and determine what we truly needed and what God wanted us to do. We would then raise the capital funds for the needs that came out of that decision process. He listed many suggestions of things we might want to do, but acknowledged that we might amend the motion later to delete or add items. He had suggested an architect or engineer as expert, but admitted during discussion that a more general consultant in use of the building might be fine. He essentially said, “Lets figure out what we want to do, get the money and do it right!”

This, in my view, was one of the first times since I have been on the council that a motion had been made that had a component that would allow an outside consultant to help us with our long and short term visions for the church, visions that in theory were God inspired, and match our work on the physical components of the church with its spiritual. The motion allowed a lot of room for adaptation and “Jim” even moved that the motion should have to be passed twice, with consultation with the congregation occurring between the two considerations. I found it a wise and inspired solution to several problems we have been having, not the least of which seems to be that the church is ours first and God’s second. You see, “Jim” had prefaced his motion with an acknowledgment that it was God’s house, and the rest of the motion was tied to that. I was excited.

My passion was short lived, however. People in the council quickly found problems with the process that had actually been answered by the motion. Some feared that we would have problems with consulting an engineer or architect, although the motion specified a “professional: engineer, architect, etc.” This would have suggested to me that they had not really listened to the motion, except that these words were presented in writing. Others felt that we were required to use the funds we had collected on specific projects, something that could be shown to not be necessarily the case either. Even it this last were true, there was nothing in the motion that prohibited it, rather the motion would such use of funds part of a larger, more holistic approach to our work and stewardship. Almost totally ignored were the underlying premises of the motion that were stated in the preamble, that we were talking about God’s house and making decisions based on fear. The first words I heard in response were that we needed to worry about what would happen if we didn’t have the funding in place before we decided to make the decision. I then heard fear that it would be a big commitment and take too long, despite an acknowledgment that we probably should have taken this route to begin with. While many of the arguments against the proposal may (note emphasis, please) have been valid if considered dispassionately, they were presented only as things of which to be frightened. As such, emotions were already running high when responses came to the arguments. People were calm enough in their speech, but it seemed to me that fear was the governing criteria for discussion. My passion for the meeting ebbed as I developed my own fear that the motion would not be seen as a serious step on a new course for the church, it would likely never even be considered as a part of any viable course.

As people decided the focus needed to stay on how we prioritized our current spending and leave the idea of integrating our mission and building use into another day, “Jim” moved to table his motion. During all this several folks tried parliamentary procedural tricks to move things to where they wanted them, in the process showing they did not know Robert’s Rules regarding calling the question or tabling a motion, but I said nothing. The passion was gone. We were back to squabbling over whose views should win. I already knew that to some in that room it was more important to win than be right; I had actually heard the statement made.

I always wonder why God chose to make his church out of people, because no matter what, they insist on acting like people. I know it is because he loves us and craves our love given in a way that we are likely incapable of giving Him, at least as we are. But when I watch people try to manipulate the church’s boards to get their way, which they assume is God’s, I know in my heart they are wrong. God does not put deceit or manipulation in our hearts to accomplish his purpose. When I hear an impassioned plea from a couple of members, 25% the “losing” side, that we support the decision of the body, only to hear others say they were going to go try to find out if the vote was legal so maybe it could be set aside, I feel a bit let down. Of course, they are certain I am wrong. I wonder if they know it in their hearts as well?

On the other hand, there was a beginning of an idea that maybe we could do greater things than we had been doing, if we set aside fear, do them for God’s glory and with Christian love. “Jim” has only been a member of the church for a short time, yet he has risen as a natural and respected leader. Maybe the time wasn’t ripe for this. Maybe this was the sowing of a seed, maybe a mustard seed. Maybe I will find I have a passion for these things again as I once did, and still do for some areas of ministry. Who knows? God bless you “Jim.”

And as Tiny Tim said, “God bless us; every one.”

The Tonsured One

Thursday, September 10, 2009

EVENT: SINGFEST AT THE STROTHER MEETING HOUSE-Nashville

Event Announcement. Strother is the reassembled log house that hosted the first meeting of a Methodist Conference west of the Alleghenies in 1802, Francis Asbury presiding .

SCARRITT BENNETT CENTER

1008 18th AVENUE SOUTH

NASHVILLE, TN

JOIN US!

SINGFEST AT THE MEETING HOUSE

Sunday, Sept. 20 at 4PM

A free outdoor concert on Scarritt-Bennett’s lawn at the historic Strother’s Meeting House

Bring blankets and lawn chairs and enjoy the music of:

CHOIRS: Edgehill United Methodist Church, East End United Methodist Church,

Unity Missionary Baptist Church GROUPS: Altonettes, Joe Lee Trio, Kindling Stone and more

SONG LEADER: Marilyn Thornton, Emery United Methodist Church, Murfreesboro

PIANIST: Steve Lindsey, Edgehill United Methodist Church

There will be lots of congregational singing of familiar hymns

In the event of rain, Singfest will be held in Scarritt-Bennett Center’s Fondren Hall