What is a Christian’s responsibility when faced with falsehood or wrongdoing, especially within the context of the church? In my experience working in the church, I have found that many sincere Christians believe it is their duty to respond to falsehood with silent tolerance, especially when the problem comes down from an authority such as a senior pastor. Tolerance in this circumstance is based upon a person’s intention to “maintain unity” or to “obey one’s authorities.” Both are biblical mandates, but neither are appropriately applied with certain circumstances. When church leaders abuse their authority by lording it over their subordinates, or when they willingly persist in wrongdoing without reproval, they commit injustice and deserve to be confronted with their sin. Such activity should not be tolerated.
Justice is a necessary component of Christian life. John Calvin wrote, “Where you hear God’s glory mentioned, think of his justice. For whatever deserves praise must be just” (TPR, 209). In my church experience, “justice” has been a foreign concept, ignored, or perhaps merely considered unimportant to faith and practice. When Godly people tolerate wrong after wrong, the result is oppression and spiritual bondage. Additionally, the wrongdoer often uses this tolerance to their advantage, testing the limits of acceptability and exercising greater authoritarianism. I’m writing this as I read the work of Katharina Schutz Zell, wife of Matthew Zell, a popular Protestant minister in Germany during the sixteenth century. Up to that time, clerical celibacy had been strictly enforced by the Catholic church, and people like the Zell’s were among the first to challenge it. As a result, many opponents to clerical marriage spread rumors and lies about the sinfulness of their union, and sought to defend the authority of the Catholic Church. When many within the church attacked her for her marriage, Zell spoke out rather than suffering their abuses silently.
In response to the lies, the outspoken Katharina makes an appeal to justice, citing John 18:22-23: [When Christ was struck in the face by Ananias’ servant], “He did not strike back, He did not flee, He did not resist the evil at all, as He had previously taught His disciples. However, He did not keep silent about it as if the servant acted rightly, but He said, 'If I have spoken evil, give proof of it, but if not, why do you strike me?' For it is sufficient that we Christians suffer injustice; we should not say that injustice is justice" (Zell, 66). I believe the same principles apply, say, in the case of a pastor who consistently makes unfair demands on his employees’ time, for example, when giving assignments at the last minute or ordering changes without consultation. While it would not be right to “strike back” by slacking off on one’s work, it is altogether acceptable to ask (with Christ), “why did you strike me?” I think Christ’s example in John shows us that suffering is part of the Christian life, but silence is not.
If those within the church were more sensitive to and involved in the lives of their brothers and sisters, another thoughtful person could ask these questions on behalf the one suffering. Those who lack a voice are the very ones who are most deserving of intercession on their behalf. In any case, to be silent or passive about wrongdoing is to support the wrong. It will not suffice to appeal to utilitarianism: that at the expense of one, many benefit. The church cannot function in this way. When the powerful are uncontested in their abuses, their abuses increase. Something unhealthy for an individual suddenly becomes unhealthy for several people, and then many, until an entire church body is polluted.
I have witnessed people quietly tolerate much grief in the name of obedience, or because they didn’t want to stir up trouble. In the course of this silent tolerance, many aspects of life experience the effects of injustice: individual spiritual and physical health deteriorate, the family life suffers the problems of the individual, and a connection is severed between one’s work and worship at church and the greater purposes of God and the Kingdom. We will suffer, but we should not be silent.
Hillerbrand, Hans J., ed. The Protestant Reformation. Harper & Row, 1968.
Katharina Schutz Zell, “Apologia for Master Matthew Zell,” in Church Mother: The Writings of a Protestant Reformer in Sixteenth-Century Germany, ed. Elsie McKee (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), pp. 57-82.
11 comments:
You're right on about the injustice of a tyrant disguised in clerical garb lording it over his inferiors (i.e., his staff). Practical considerations, like remaining employed and continuing to pay the mortgage, often hinder those so "struck" from speaking up. You and I both know of an instance or two where an underling with the audacity to speak up (or out) was axed for their candor. Probably they were better off for it. It may be insufficient faith in God's provision that hinders such speaking out, or maybe it's the well-meaning hope that silent tolerance will help to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." I heartily agree that those in a position to do so can and should speak up on behalf of those suffering unjustly. Sadly, too often those in such a position - such as the church's elders - are either so enamoured with or cowed by the senior pastor (who likely handpicked them) that they do nothing. It takes courage, humility, and holy boldness to stand up against tyrants - including those in positions of leadership in the church. And it takes faith and prayer. God can change hearts or alter circumstances. Sometimes the only way He alters circumstances for a "silent sufferer" is through the decision to remove oneself from the situation. Of course, the injustice continues for those left behind.
Indeed. Besides the reading on Zell, I was inspired to write this after a "Peacemakers" meeting last Sunday, which is a group of Fuller students led by ethics prof Dr. Stassen and community activist Jill Shook. Dr. Stassen shared something he's soon going to publish about the America's anti-peacemaking policies. But that's beside the point. The point he made is that you should not demand that your enemy/opponent/brother change their ways BEFORE you talk; instead, the talking precedes such admissions, with the expectation that change will follow. In the same way, I believe you could say the oppressed should not wait until the tyrant changes and then opt for change, but take some initiative (as Dr. Stassen said: "send a few sheep and goats as presents, then talk"). Though Stassen is really writing for the tyrants, I believe you could invert the idea and have something just as applicable for the oppressed.
Geez...lighten up. Why aren't you being funny? Uh?
Eugene
Evan, I am very pleased that you have cited your sources. You my friend, are not plagiarist! I am sure some more of your experiences will fuel more of your writings. Well said.
-Curtis B.
Eugene, you are the living end. And thanks Curtis, you're right, I'm not a plagiarist. In fact, my dad's got some great thoughts on the subject, which I hope to get blogged soon, for those who might be interested...
My question is, how long does one keep silent in order to maintain unity? Also is it okay to fight the pastor...and yes i mean physiclly.
neb-
"How long to stay silent to maintain unity?" Great question Neb, and a challenging one. It's all too easy to swing too far in one direction and become either a vigilante or a slave. The first question I would ask in response is: what kind or type of unity are we talking about? I don't believe that a church or institution should be united in hatred, racism, or some other harmful -ism. Therefore, unity is not an unconditional category of church life, but it must necessarily be contingent upon something or someone. I believe the church has for its standard the person of Jesus Christ, who establishes concretely a way to follow. In fact, the church is the bodily presence of Christ on earth, and as such, the church demolishes hatred and racism and other -isms. Second question: how else is unity maintained except through dialog, or why should confrontation of wrongs be perceived as hostile to unity? Rather than taking up arms to enact change by force or simply succumbing to the tyrant, there are a whole variety of alternatives. The Biblical mandate is to confront someone individually at first, then with witnesses, then take them before the church, and if all else fails to remove them from fellowship. This is discipline which not only preserves a status quo but seeks justice in a merciful way. Sufficient?
And oh yes, about fighting the pastor. Only go to blows if you're bigger than him. It's also a good idea to carry a gun in case he's small yet surprisingly proficient at martial arts, which is common. The only thing you've got to worry about is him roundhouse kicking the gun out of your hands before you can get a shot off. But seriously, if we're talking about, "Is it okay to confront a pastor?" I'd answer with a resounding Yes! While I do think people should normally respect authority and keep quiet, pastors are all too often exempted from accountability and dig themselves a deep, dark hole ("Who will police the police?"). A good pastor would likely welcome loving confrontation. I mean, if a good friend told me I was constantly pissing him off, I'd want to know it and correct my behavior, not stubbornly persist in sin. Bad pastors require greater grace, patience, and prayer, and probably different tactics. But these are commonly understood mandates from Scripture (as I said above). They're just too often decontextualized, idealized, or otherwise ignored. No king is exempt from justice, especially when that king follows Christ.
Just had an epiphany about something I wrote in the blog. I said one person's spiritual sickness may eventually spread to others until an entire church is corrupted. Thanks to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I'd like to correct that now: any member of the body of Christ who is infected infects the whole body. It's not a matter of numbers, but the condition of an integrated whole, comprised of many parts. Only by acknowledging this can we really avoid the dangers of utilitarian ethics that would turn a blind eye to suffering of an individual if it had no "serious" effects on a large number of people. More on this later...
Pastors who are spiritually sick and continue to lead their flocks out of their sickness, without reaching out for or submitting humbly to the Great Physician for healing, are committing spiritual abuse. The sickness may be hidden from the majority of their congregants, and even the pastors themselves may be unaware of their own condition. This blindness often results from an unwillingness to submit to the fellowship of believers in a spirit of mutual accountability. Such pastors will demand that congregants submit to the authority of their spiritual leaders (meaning the main pastor, of course) or, basically, get out of Dodge! There is no mutuality, no humility, no acknowledgement of any personal responsibility to foster a spirit of unity in the body. So, while I would agree with Bonhoeffer that any member of Christ's body who is infected with sin infects the whole body, I would argue that those charged with leading, feeding, and protecting the flock of Christ have an even greater responsibility before the Lord. They will therefore incur a stricter judgment if they bring infection to the body.
You're right, pops. That's an important clarification.
Post a Comment