This afternoon, in an ongoing effort to loosen writer's block on my dissertation, I spent some time wandering the world of Presbyterian blogs. One was a very nice assessment of presbytery meetings from the perspective of a time-poor Thirtysomething elder. (Keep the reports to a minimum.) One was a reflection on mission in a small church. (It is possible and fun.) Most, however, were diatribes on the state of the church. (It is evidently not good.)
One complaint blog stood out. It was a lengthy post (4400+ words) about the goings on surrounding the dismissal of Montreat Presbyterian Church in Western North Carolina presbytery. It was not the events shared that caught my eye, but the language the writer used.
Let me say here that I have no particular opinion about the issue of Montreat Presbyterian Church. I am not a member of the presbytery and I do not know the facts of the case. And, in the end, beyond hoping that there will be peace in the valley in the PC(USA), I don't have a dog in that hunt.
I do take issue with the blog nonetheless. In the first 14 paragraphs, the writer used the word "persecute" or the word "persecution" to describe what was happening to the church at the hands of the presbytery. "Persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ," to be precise. That is evidently what is happening in the verdant hills of western North Carolina these days.
Persecution? Really?
As someone who spends a great deal of my time writing, I understand the temptation to use a hyperbolic turn of phrase to express in writing the passion you feel about a particular topic. All of us have, at one time or another, used language that is too harsh, too abrupt, too insensitive or just plain ugly. It is just part of being human and having passion about the world. But as a writer, you have an obligation to consider the language you use and what it means to use a particular word.
Saying that the Presbyterians at Montreat Presbyterian Church are being "persecuted" does more than overstate the case. It understates what is happening to Christians around the world who are truly being persecuted. Fighting with your presbytery over a building in a high-rent enclave like Montreat is hardly the same as persecution at the hands of a repressive government or at the hands of a violent political or religious climate.
According to Websters', "persecute" means "to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief." I am not sure "we don't get to keep our church building" rises to the level of this definition.
Absent other evidence, I assume that the members of Montreat Presbyterian Church are sincere in their beliefs and that they do indeed care for their worship home. I also assume that the presbytery is seeking to act in compassion and love rather than to "injure, grieve or afflict."
Persecution is what the government of China does when religious communities become too prolific or politically powerful.
Persecution is what the dictatorship in North Korea does when its citizens step an inch out of line.
Persecution is what happens when faithful men and women risk life and limb to live lives of faith in Jesus Christ.
The intra-denominational fights in the PC(USA) over buildings and doctrines are not persecution. To say that they are dishonors the true sacrifice so many faithful men, women and even children make around the world.
The words we use matter. I understand the feeling of spiritual isolation my conservative brothers and sisters must be feeling in parts of the church today. I have felt it most of my life and ministry. But when it comes down to it, they are not being persecuted today anymore than I was in the past. We are privileged to live our faith so freely so let's drop the hyperbole and invective and fill this free space with the promise of the Gospel.
But Robert, just for the sake of opening discussion (since neither one of us have a dog in the hunt in NC), could it not be perceived by members of the MPC that after years and years of faithful service within a denomination which they love, they see the denomination moving away from what it has professed for years? Whether it has in our mind or not, could that be a perception today?
ReplyDeleteIf so, would it not be logical to say that, while trying to be faithful to serve where God might be calling them (EPC in this case), the Presbytery, eager to hold tight to polity is harassing MPC in a manner designed to grieve them?
The reason I am asking, is that is what happened here with the FPC Longview situation. The Presbytery staff overreacted, did not follow Presbytery policy, and came across as harassing demeaning to the Session, pastors, and members who were concerned about the future of the PC(USA) in a way that would grieve them and try to force them to remain within the PC(USA). They even held the Property trust clause as a threat to those who wanted to leave. All of this took place prior to the Session's decision to leave, and actually gave a greater reason to pursue dismissal. They left without property, as a way to allow the remnant to find life. But, it was clear to the Presbytery body that FPC Longview had been intentionally grieved - the definition of persecution.
I agree with your intent in this blog that it is not as serious of a situation as those examples listed. But, in our soft, tolerant, comfort, me centered American Culture, this is the closest we come today to experiencing persecution, and because of that, it is real as perceived.
I hear where you are coming from, Rob. I just don't think the language of persecution is e ever reasonable in our context. Not by the left in years past and not by the right now. I have no doubt the it feels that way to some people but I can't Get on board with the idea that thE language is reasonable.
ReplyDeleteRobert,
ReplyDeleteWe agree on this. I think both the left in the past and the right currently are whining. If they don't like what is going on, they are free to peaceably withdraw without causing schism.
What I am saying though is that Words Matter.
By the exact definition you gave, it defines persecution as, "to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically: to cause to suffer because of belief."
That is what is happening to an extent here. So, whether we think it whining or not, by definition, it is persecution.
Now, having said that, here's the kicker...I have sat with believers in Africa who converted from Muslim families and have the scars to show what persecution is in their context. I have listened to people in China who have had their families killed because they professed faith in Christ - great persecution in their context. I have prayed with those who have lost everything as a result of being faithful to Christ in their given context.
I think we can both agree that persecution is real in other places.
What you seem to be saying in your response is that context does not matter. If this is true, then I have some follow up questions to understand how context matters in some things and not in others.
Rob, You are absolutely right that there are some things happening in the church today that meet a dictionary definition of "persecution." The point I hope to make is that by adopting that vocabulary for our internal disagreements we degrade the impact of that language for situations like the ones you describe in Africa or China.
ReplyDeleteIn our current context it would be wholly reasonable to say that some congregations are being mistreated or unfairly treated by their presbyteries and some congregations that are behaving unfairly to minority voices in their midst.
Context does certainly matter. I think that in this particular situation, we have an available vocabulary that adequately describes what is happening in the PC(USA) without resorting to language of a very different context in the church.
And AMEN to the observation about whining! It drives me nuts.
Does that help clarify where I am trying to go with this?
RL