The Dilemma of the Church

My Thesis:

I recently left the church after having once been an elder and also working for twenty years in church elderly homes as a male nurse and later in management. In caused a ripple and many people, knowing how I spoke for a liberal faith, were perturbed and some were downright annoyed. I left saying that I blame nobody personally, but that the structure of the church as I experienced it is generally malevolent for people who engross themselves in activities so wholeheartedly as I have.

I described the problem as a dilemma, since the church (in my experience) pursues an idealism that stems against reason and would have believers shout “nonetheless” or “anyway” in the face of opposition and fight on, despite evidence that their position was purely idealistic and that other approaches could be considered. Often, the resistance I experienced was not to protect substantial content, but to protect habits (often deemed “tradition”) and prevent change in the light of human development.

My contention is that church leaders knowingly or unwittingly promote this idealistic behaviour and accept that there will be the collateral damage of numerous people falling into burnout and depression as a result of it. Having been myself the victim of burnout, I was amazed to find out how many other people who worked for or were committed to the church had experienced the same. Looking into this aspect, I discovered that not only are there many burnout victims, but also cases of alcoholism, religious paranoia, phobia and schizophrenia to be taken into account, not to mention the numerous cases of helper-syndrome. It turns out that not only people looking for an ideal, but also people looking for a niche, in which they could live out behaviour which would be a source of conflict in normal society, tend to be committed to the church.

The discovery of rehabilitative centres, which amount to psychiatric clinics, in which at least members of clergy can recover from these numerous disorders, shows that the problem is not unknown, but it is not accepted that the problems are widespread. Recently it has been found that pedophile priests have also found a haven in these centres, once their tendencies are found out. However, the tendency to play these things down and continue in the ways which produce these problems is the normal practise.

A second problem that has become apparent is the effect of peer-pressure and indoctrination, especially in lay-movements. On the surface these groups or churches appear to be very charismatic and there is the odd miracle, with laying on of hands and the person concerned falling backwards in a trance. The members sing themselves to ecstasy and tears to hype up the atmosphere and a very emotional sermon is held which has everybody crying out hallelujah. As outward-going as these people are when it comes to witnessing their faith, there are a large number of people who succumb to the external influences and therefore spend as much time in the church and at retreats “to build up for the encounter with the world” as they can. They need the hype to cope with modern day reality – if the actually do. I know of many members who lead dual lives, in which their behaviour in work is different to the way they present themselves in their parish. There is a clear bracketing of accepted behaviour in the world which finds no acceptance in the parish to be observed.

I spoke with a social-worker regarding her work, after her having had difficulty finding a place to work which fulfilled her requirements, and we conversed in the normal language of social science, psychology and nursing. In the religious environment I noticed how she presented herself as a bulwark in the tide of “psychological wish-wash” and that all these people needed was Jesus. Another woman spoke to me about employment in the care of disabled people, ensuring she knew how important it was to understand the psychology of the people she would care for, but in the religious environment she spoke derogatively about this aspect of her job, saying that the disabled “rejected Christ”!

These examples are the kind of cases which have caused me to question the vocation I had when going into nursing at a relatively late stage in life, which I had understood as an expression of love. There are numerous other examples. At first I had confirmation of the fact that faith is a healer, which I attributed to God working through the faithful. Gradually, however, I noticed how other Christians were critical of the things I had learnt, despite the positive experience I was having with that growing expertise. I even had to intervene when I saw a “brother” reacting to a patient in a completely unprofessional manner and reaped contempt for the specialized knowledge I recommended using in that case. Strangely, where I found acceptance in the church, there was no acceptance between the different groups. The one was “too wordly” and the other “too fanatical” in the others eyes.

Therefore I find that the church, not only locally, but generally, doesn’t have the healing effect it would like to have. The bright shine only blinds the onlooker for the human frailty underneath. On the other hand, I have had many positive experiences helping people with nursing in combination with spiritual counselling and a non-literalist reading of the bible. Expression of the love of God, whether by theistic practitioners or not, is to be found in more genuine places than the church. In fact, after leaving the church, one becomes more aware of what else is going on around the world – which is quite sobering.

This doesn’t mean that individuals in the church manage to create a healing atmosphere despite the adverse structural conditions, but it is very often a struggle against the mainstream.

Does anybody else have views on this?

bob I think some churches are in the process of change…one problem my church has is maintaining the church institution and not attending to the health of its members…

In what way do you see this happening? Is it neglect or a “higher” agenda?

Great testimony bro Bob.

Been there, done that. Went all in. Got burned … out.

my church spends too much time worrying about paying the bills…they need to attract members to pay the bills… and to do
tasks that burn members out…

Bob–As the member of a Christian cult I had similar experiences and worse. To be a member in good standing one was expected to relinquish one’s rights. However, one doesn’t know when something is particular to ones own situation or generalizable to the church in general. Actually I think you may have hit on the crux of the matter when you mentioned idealism. The church’s claims to be the possessors of such ideals leads to false consciousness that blinds people to what people are actually doing, their true motives. Too often, churches function as propaganda machines for their consumers. In the cult I was in we were only supposed to read in-house stuff generated by the top guy who called himself the “minister of the age.”

Yeah, I hate how church’s try to indoctrinate their members and staff into accepting their…doctrines. It’s totally unfair that they won’t let priests, deacons, and elders preach the opposite of what they believe from their pulpits. Scandalous. If there’s one thing Jesus believed in, it was telling people whatever the fuck they wanted to hear to make them feel good about themselves.

Yes, there was this aspect to my experience as well. The evangelical groups I associated with tended to neglect other opinions and build up arguments against other positions without actually understanding those positions. I even remember a debate on the occult meaning of the Eagle’s song, Hotel California, which I tried to settle by explaining the lyrics (since it was Germans making the argument) and ending up being a suspect. There was a “black-list” of books that “should be burned” and when I started up a group that discussed into the night, I was accused of “leading the youth astray”. I could have been honoured by being in the company of Socrates at least in that one point, but it is disconcerting when you are just asking the questions that are there.

It is this fact, that there are questions - more and more of them as we progress in science - that we can’t ignore. Especially when it comes down to seeing people distressed and becoming depressive, or at worst, psychologically instable, we have to ask some questions which, in the past, were dealt with by demonising them and punished with a hundred hail-Mary’s or worse, even down to ostracisiing members.

The dilemma is that in this way, the healing church is not visible, but rather it becomes the hurting church, full of sorrow and distress. I still meet the old and frail who have always held on to their simplistic faith, which I do not criticise, except when it leads to such behaviour as I and others have described above. I meet them which respect and help them live that faith, but I am also there for people who have become disgrumpled through their experiences with the church, and try to offer some consolation in their frailty too. God and Jesus have to be left out of the equation in such cases, which is a problem for the conservative believer who is sure that it is only Christ that these people need.

Hi Ucc., I’m afraid you are taking the stance that is so contra-productive in the sight of real human suffering. It is simple water that people sometimes need to alleviate their thirst, and some can only take the milk of sucklings - they can’t stomache the meat you are offering. I appreciate the analogy that Paul used, but it isn’t useful in all cases.

I appreciate too the fact that people can’t ignore their spots and if people are so convince of what they believe then they must stay with that, but my contention is with the faith that disregards and neglects the hurt that the church itself, or confrontation with Christians has caused. I am equally galled at the violence of atheists and others against Christians, which is equally evil. The conflict against Christianity is however often coloured by the foreign policy of “Christian Countries”, which is at least how other nations often see the west, and the spread of violence and oppression (as well as pornography and numerous other “civilisation-diseases”) from our societies, which seems to have always accompanied Christian missionaries - but which the church does not stand off against clearly enough.

There are just things which need addressing in the church, regardless of the denomination, which need to be accepted and not neglected - or else you find yourself unwittingly defending something which Christ wouldn’t have seen as his church.

Right, and naturally what the people need more than anything are the doctrines and ideas that Bob came up with, instead of the Church's own.  And naturally the best way for those doctrines to  be given to the people is if Bob is allowed to teach the views that he came up with from the pulpit with the implied sanction and authority of 2,000 years of religious tradition behind him, even though he's broken with that tradition, right? 
 Why can't you just write a book or get a talk show or start a cult if you're all about curing people's suffering, and your so sure that your divergent ideas and not the Church's are the best way?  How can the Church be blamed for not endorsing Bobism?   To be clear, I've nothing to say about Bobism, it's goodness or badness.  Maybe you have everything 100% correct about what people need to hear, how they need to hear it, etc.  My only gripe is, why does the Church have to do what you say?  Other people don't expect this, you may note. Marxists, Libertarians, Unitarians, atheists (for the most part) Scientologists..they just do their own thing.  This goes beyond religion, and gets to the very basic nature of human societies and cultures.  If you become president of the Atheist Club, and start telling people about how Jesus is the one true Son of God etc., they kick you out. If you become high priest of the Church of Capitalism and start telling everybody about how the greatest problem in civilization is man's alienation from his labor, you will be defrocked.  If you become a Boy Scout leader and start telling kids that building campfires is for pussies, then....well, you get the idea. 
I want to say this in the most polite way I can.  What you just said, above, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the first post of yours that I replied to. You are rambling. The only common thread between this thing you said and the last thing you said is "CHURCH = BAD".   We weren't talking about the Church's violence against people, or the Church's silence on pornography, or any of that. Your thread was about how church leadership is close-minded to alternative interpretations of their faith. That's what I was replying to, that's what everybody who replied was replying to.   I get this a lot from you, honestly- you move from one kind of Church bashing to another seamlessly and without cause, and you [i]seem[/i] to think you're actually expressing a coherent idea, when you aren't.  To give an analogy, suppose I said this:

France sucks because they surrendered to easily in WWII

and then you replied with “Well, actually the French Resistance were some of the bravest opponents of the Nazi’s.”

so I immediately say “Yeah but their women don’t shave and they tend not so shower.”

and you reply with “I don’t see what that has to do with WWII, but ok. French hygiene issues are a stereotype that really doesn’t mesh with reality.”

And then I say, “The real point here is that the French are investing too heavily in nuclear power, which endangers us all”.

and so on. You don’t seem to realize it, but that’s exactly what you’re doing. Just saying negative things about Christianity, over and over, exhaustively and exclusively. You get a lot of applause here when you do that, but when somebody disagrees, you just flow into a completely different negative thing about Christianity as if you didn’t really see what they said.

Really, I just think you’re a spiteful man. You tried to use the Church to push your own favorite spiritual views on vulnerable church goers, which involved a heck of a lot of heresy. The Church said ‘no’, and you’ve had nothing good to say about them ever since.

There’s that sophism again, Ucci.

I think that you are missing the point really. My Problems grew as I moved from being a supposed “charismatic” layman to a male nurse, actually confronted with the ailments of the elderly and dying, instead of having theories about that aspect of life. I was on an upward learn curve and discovering more and more as the days went on. Gradually the conflicts grew and I found myself deciding in opposition to what evangelical Christians were maintaining and even growing closer to the Catholic Church for a while.

The discovery that psychology had identified many of the behaviors I was witnessing and whilst growing in empathy, I started discovering ailments that had been successfully suppressed - including the dementia of the group leader, which was in the beginning stages and first of all denied outright. Later I was consulted for advice and the poor man died about ten years later after a martyrdom trying to keep up the facade. It was this kind of inability to accept the evidence in many cases which made me rethink, of course. I had to restructure my faith to encompass those aspects which had been blended out of the world-view of church-goers.

My contention is that the church only stands to its teaching when it accepts its frailty and imperfection and learns humility. The Christians I know are either oblivious to what moves people, or they rise blandly above it and preach down. This is often not even intentional, but part of the given structure and all with good intentions. However, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” as they say. I have also made a point of telling people that I hold no personal grudge, and of course there are people in the church who are very Christ-like and loving.

One aspect I find particularly disturbing and self-destructive is the lack of understanding that the church has always inadvertently promoted evil that it carried on the back of its idealism. Occultism gained popularity first off as an oppositional movement to the cruelty of the church, then it went on to gradually become the hyped perversion we are often presented in the movies. Pornography, although always around especially since photography, made a jump as a method of free expression in a prudish society ruled by church moralism. It has been the inability to react to its demons in an appropriate way that has hyped them, not to mention the extreme developments like the Inquisition and numerous other violent oppression of heretics.

Because I grew up in the church and I see a tendency to become the opposite to what it intends or claims to be, it hurts to see how people are motivated to devote themselves only to trip over the baggage that is left around and needs to be cleaned up. It is not a question of my own teaching being not accepted, but that the church is breaking up here in Europe and for good reasons.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, which is the normal strategy to deal with supposed heretics, but I was looking for a discussion about a dilemma I see as being very real. There are enough people who I can identify with, but they just can’t change the situation. As for being spiteful, I can’t see that and when I speak to people about alternative interpretations of the NT they tend to see me being constructive rather than destructive. I never had a conflict as a result of my spiritual views, but because of the damage I saw people were suffering and the continual putting off of change to prevent that suffering. It isn’t with individuals that I have my problems, but with the built in structures which tend to be rendering the opposite effects than the believers hope for and try to muster up.

But as you chose to go ad hominem I’ll just have to hope for some constructive discussion from others.

I think it is primarily an issue of authority. Who in this age will voluntarily put themselves under another human being who claims God granted absolute authority?

I can actually understand the pull to assume divine authority and try and “do something” against those opinions I don’t share, but wisdom has a different lesson for us. In the long run it is in not being reactive and getting things done on the small scale that the highest good is achieved.

In a book on the early church (I can’t remember which one) the author mentioned that the Bishops of the church, even before Constantine, were becoming anything but humble with regard to the influence the church was having. On the other hand, if we are indecisive and pussyfoot around, people won’t support us. When the Church is out looking for numbers the more pragmatic method seems more promising, but the growth (if any) is not organic and popularity can be lost as fast as it came.

As soon as power-people are in control, they start flexing their muscle and once they are given influence or even power, the opposite to humility starts taking over. A dilemma!

What I question is, what was my reason or need to fool myself? Why was it so easy for me to fall for those ideals?

But I guess we need. And because we need, because there’s an itch – a hankering – we reach for high ideals. And what do we know? And here’s someone that has it all worked out, offering a whole set of cohesive ideals, offering, in fact, “the eternal purpose of God.”

What shiny and sparkly ideals!

But they were hiding a hook. It was said of the minister of the age that, he fished with a straight hook.

And that brings me back to my question. Why did I need to fool myself? Why did I take that straight hook?

I suppose it has something to do with “The Dilemma of the Church.”

I think the first answer is that we were looking for answers and the answers we were given were the easiest to swallow and yes, they seemed cohesive. At least it was for me. But I think people who go through this process are growing slowly and as we progress it becomes clear that we have outgrown those ideas. They are enough for a short while but at some time they become obsolete or we transcend them. I discovered the importance of stories for humanity and began to realise that the Gospels would work as wisdom-stories. I later came to see how Mark’s Gospel was written like a greek tragedy and noticed how the horizons broadened when I began to assume that.

Ideals are important, but they have to be congruent with reality. They provide us with a model to work on and keep our aims high. If we don’t forget the 20/80 rule and don’t exaggerate our ideals, we can cope quite well. But when there is some kind of hype on, then things grow out of proportion and we get consquences we weren’t reckoning with. that is the way I see evangelicals - they’re hyped up Christians. The hype at a pentecostal meeting is even as blatant as can be - that is where I ask myself why people can’t see it.

I don’t know whether it is a straight hook - I’m not really sure I understand what a “straight” hook means! But then again, who understands everything? I just found that it is only when you step back and make comparisons, you get a different perspective.

Well said bro Bob. I’ve gotten to the point that any hype is suspect bluster to cover a bait and switch scheme.

Bob,
Nice to see you finally join our ranks. Don’t you wish the process of being set free could happen faster? Do you feel better internally?
I know I tried to share this sense of peace with you a long time ago but you didn’t want to take your life preserver off. Keep sharing Bob, only those are gripped in fear and use the Pascals Wager won’t open the mind to freedom.
John

I’m not so sure I’ve joined any ranks, I’ve not given up on the church - especially since the new Pope is making sweeping changes that may even get around to what I was talking about. Recently I read Brad Warner on God in Buddhism in his book “There is no God and he is always with you” and found a lot of what I have discovered over the years in what he wrote as well. Who knows, perhaps we could come around to accepting that God is a mystery, and we are talking about something that isn’t served well by literalism or maintaining historicity at all costs.

I think you are talking about something very important…crucial to human life…