Guilt and Unity
Something I often find myself struggling with is the call to be unified with other believers and my ability to put up with crap (to put it bluntly). I know I should get a better attitude and try to be more open and understanding and all that, but it honestly is a struggle. It's not that I don't intellectually acknowledge that we are all part of the church universal or that I don't see other believers as brothers and sisters in Christ. But there are times when spiritually I just can't handle week after week of soul-crushing interaction, theology, or worship. And I'm really sick of being made to feel guilty because of it.
Recently I have encountered numerous accusations against the emerging church that we are an elitist denomination who doesn't know how to play well with others. Because we express dissenting opinions or rethink the mechanics of church, we are the outsiders who are destroying the church. If we would just shut up and deal then all unity will be restored or something. To an extent I understand that. There is so much division in the church that even unintentionally causing more is difficult for me. But the conditions of such unity are often too hard to accept. If I have to stop thinking and asking questions is it worth it? If I have to accept that shallow prayer requests, trendy music, and listening to lectures is all I need for spiritual growth? If I have to pretend that fill-in-the-blank "bible" studies (followed by craft time) are the only theology women need? Or that my highest calling is to be a good mom? I can understand that such things might work for some people, but I can't do it. So why am I constantly told that I am wrong and divisive because of that?
I've heard from so many others who have completely left the church because of these issues. If they didn't fit into one particular packaging of the church they were made to feel guilty. And of course leaving the church for the demonized denomination down the street was out of the question, so they just stopped going to church. The homogeneous one size fits all church appears to be all about unity of faith, but in reality how many people have had their faith destroyed because of it? I have way more questions than answers here. And I am sure that I've offended traditionalists of a variety of stripes. But as I become more comfortable with who I am and with choosing to seek God, I get more and more disturbed by the accusations leveled against me by those who boxes I don't fit into.
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Julie,
I hope you'll pardon the dissent here, but… well, first off, I understand where you're coming from. I grew up in a fundamentalist church and it was very mentally and spiritually abusive. There is no doubt that there are many spiritually destructive churches out there. I was nearly an agnostic for a while there, but thankfully I got into a good UMC and things have turned around. A lot. I even feel lead towards the ministry.
But, and this is from somebody who's only contact with the emerging church has been through blogs, but I see a lot of the same attitudes at times. I can understand a certain amount of bitterness and anger at previous spiritual abuse, but I've often seen a rather snide and belittling attitude from some emergents when it comes to people who are more theologically conservative. I admit to being more to the right (in more than one way), but I'd honestly not feel accepted if that was the attitude of the church as a whole. Maybe these things go against the very idea of the emerging church, but I'd like to think if it truly is as open as many emergents claim it is, there would be room for everybody, including those who are more orthodox in their theology.
What I hear you saying is that you wish there was less crap to wade through in the name of "unity", or at least the "other side" would take more responsibility for their own messes before demanding we take their side ankle deep in the stuff. That about it?
Thank you, Julie, for your thoughtful writing. I have added "onehandclapping" to the blogroll (a limited blogroll at that!) on my blog, "a believer's journal."
Unity is Jesus' idea, not ours, and it is in obedience to our Lord that we seek it, not because we feel pressured by other churches or church leaders. And unity is not about homogenizing the faith, but about listening to each other and being with each other … in all our diversity and with all our questions and embodying all our traditions or lack of same which may cause offense!
It's about daring to listen and daring to talk — honestly — with each other. Daring to call him, brother, or her, sister, because they too seek to follow Jesus even when we just can't understand or even can't stand where they're coming from.
The Holy Spirit is not so much in us as among us, and is best discerned, best revealed, not in this or that church, but in the church as a whole, in all its frustrating and often misguided manifestations.
Donnie – you right at the often arrogant attitudes. and I am more than guilty of that at times as well. But often I think any questioning on the part of emergents gets labeled as arrogant or intolerant. Most of the time we are just trying to seek Jesus. We are experiencing faith in new and vibrant ways (for us) and want the freedom pursue those paths. We have found that often we do have to put this new wine in new wineskins – although often we wish that could be done alongside the traditions we came out of. It is a tough balance to be authentic and true to where we are being led, but at the same time respect where others are at. I have found that I need the space to say that certain expressions of the faith are not for me, even while acknowledging that they are just fine for others.
Tim – thanks for your thoughts. I like the idea of unity as being with each other and listening to each other. It is less about trying to make someone like me, and being willing to see how God is creatively working with that person.
Several thoughts come to mind…
First, don't let people make you feel guilty. That's a self esteem issue. If you are at peace with God about your involvement in "church" then be at peace, if you aren't then seek how He would have you change. Relax about people being uncomfortable with your ideas. Its perfectly normal for people to resist change.
I think there are two parts to the "arrogance" accusation against emergents. The first is just a manners issue. When I started reading "A new kind of Christian", I almost couldn't make it past the introduction because I was so nauseated by MacLaren comparing the importance of his own ideas to Luther and the like. I got through it and to the rest of the book and loved the stimulation. My point is, that kind of self important statement is a big turn off, even if your right! Be avant garde, don't say that you are.
The second part comes across as annoyance with people for not having already come to the same conclusions you have (I'm speaking generally here). Especially the intellectual corner of the emerging church has spent A LOT of time thinking through many issues that are barely on the radar for most people. Give people space to reach their own conclusions in their own time. It really is okay for people to be where they are. I think people associate this kind of haughtiness with liberalism… I'll have to think about why.
If you are uncomfortable with the tension that is caused by being loudly subversive, then shut up about your own ideas when you are with others. If people care what you think, they'll ask you, or come read your blog (as many do) or whatever. And when they ask, or seek you out, they will be a lot more receptive to what you have to say.
In the meantime seek unity by being a learner. Everyone can teach you something. Don't talk with people about what you disagree about (unless you both want to discuss it). Keep asking people questions until you find out what they know that you don't have a clue about, ask them all about it. Learn to make cheese, or about what life was like in X place at X time, or exactly what they do at their job. It's all great fodder if you want to write, and it shows genuine respect for the person's journey thus far.
thanks julie – i think you make a great point that unity is often not the same as uniformity.
who wants some homgenous grey lumpy cold porridge of a faith that we all have to swallow with smiles of rapterous delight as if we were all some demented goldilocks afraid of being devoured by those bad bears..?
one of the most helpful and healing things for me about the emerging chuch is being able to freely give up my right to be right – that i have the right way of doing church, the right handle on God and that everyone else is wrong.
I love it that i am often wrong, that i can finally listen to others because i haven't got THE right answer anymore.
In fact i find it exciting that we need all sorts of different churches & christians to reach all sorts of different people & places. That our differences can actually be strengths.
For me the real miracle of the church (local or universal) is not so much that we all sway in harmony but that we can actually get into the same room more than once without killing each other…
great post
Hello…I've been reading your blog for awhile and am really enjoying it. You ask questions in the same way I often do and that's refreshing.
I don't know if you've heard this analogy before (someone I told it too said it was common, but I thought it was a really neat perspective). As the church is compared to a body, how does a body function in unity? Well, it certainly doesn't do so by having all the parts do the same thing. In fact, in particular with the legs, if both moved in the same direction at the same time, we'd fall over. So that said, there has to be some sense in which different parts of the church are doing different things, even going in different directions to create the necessary balance for the church as a whole to move forward.
Just thought I'd contribute that thought in light of the above comments about unity.
If you are uncomfortable with the tension that is caused by being loudly subversive, then shut up about your own ideas when you are with others. If people care what you think, they’ll ask you, or come read your blog (as many do) or whatever.
It is situations like this that I find depressing. To have to hide who I am and the passions I have because they aren't welcome by a group is not authentic. Sure I don't want to pressure others with my ideas, but to toe the party line hoping that someone will be curious to ask if there are any dissenting opinions (as if) is just a bit too stifling. That's the sort of environment I don't want to be in.
I don't know, I think there is a balance. Like conversations with my two best friends – they are demanding and at times, demeaning, but the challenge is: can I stand up to them, hold my opinion and challenge them with what I think is truth? If I can't, how can I challenge non-friends? If my love for my friends can't get me through their razzing, how can I love others with my truth? I don't think I'm loving others when I can challenge a stranger – I think I'm loving my ideas. And I'm not sure that is what I'm called to do… I want to be able to stand for what I believe and even be vulnerable enough to explore it with anyone…whether they accept the ideas or challenge or mock…
Char – I think there is a difference between "speaking the truth in love" (so to speak) and not being able to speak at all. There are ways to love others with one's words and yes times to be silent, but to always feel as if one's words/thoughts are unwelcome and that you as a person would be rejected if you shared who you really are is on a whole different level.
"Something I often find myself struggling with is the call to be unified with other believers and my ability to put up with crap (to put it bluntly). I know I should get a better attitude and try to be more open and understanding and all that, but it honestly is a struggle."
Reason No. 1 I dropped out of seminary.
"To have to hide who I am and the passions I have because they aren’t welcome by a group is not authentic…That’s the sort of environment I don’t want to be in."
Gee, and I thought that's why you weren't doing Tues nights with us. Either I'm missing the point entirely (possible) or I just don't quite see it that way. I don't find much difference between getting into a good arguement with friends I love and getting into a good arguement with church people who reject me on a number of different principles like gender roles or theology – yet supposedly we love each other in Christ.
Any size group creates a group mind. The majority opinion rules this group mind – or the loudest opinions…and anyone's opinion that doesn't match feels unwelcome. Matt has felt that way repeatedly. He has disagreed on a number issues and after he expresses his disagreement – the group notes it, but moves back toward the discussion of the majority opinion. Is it lack of acceptance? Or group dynamics?
"If we would just shut up and deal then all unity will be restored or something."
Try this on for size:
The call towards unity can be confused with a call towards uniformity. Unity allows a variety of opinions but a singularity of purpose – it refers to a direction. Uniformity conforms and smooths out differences, but doesn't infer movement. Groups tend to devolve towards uniformity and stagnate – the hurdle is to challenge them towards unity and allow differentiation provide leadership direction.
So are they actually looking for unity and you're confusing it with uniformity – or are they looking for uniformity and they're confusing it with unity?
"but to always feel as if one’s words/thoughts are unwelcome and that you as a person would be rejected if you shared who you really are is on a whole different level."
You're right, it's on an internal level built of feelings and choices to share or not share. You can never control someone else's response or actions. You are attempting to control it by making sure you can't be rejected by not sharing. To be blunt -not to try is simply to fail to even begin.
By the way, I thought a dissenting voice would be nice to add…
julie, i appreciate this post. i think when people aren't towing the line and feel called to go against the status quo there will always be resistance. i see how pot-stirrers can be perceived as being divisive but honestly i think that's just the result of a system that doesn't tolerate negative feedback and tries to keep its people "in line" subtly. it makes me sad because we don't tolerate disagreeing very well. we don't know how to live in the tension of just seeing things differently. it is hard for me sometimes too so i always have to check what's me being negative and critical and what is actually just me having an opinion or perspective that is against the status quo and people are trying to put "disunity" and 'bitterness' onto me just because we see it differently. i feel the bind sometimes, too. anyway, i'm just rambling but thanks for sharing. kathy
Julie: First off, I don't think that your struggle to reconcile the tension between who you are inside and who you are at church is uncommon. In fact, "church"–the world, really–would be better off if more people examined their insides and struggled to be in community with others in love, as we are called to do. Many an existential crisis has been set off by the tension you feel.
We are called to unity–to that common purpose–as the body, but, really, are we not ultimately called to love all people in God's world? If we agree that this is the larger call (not just unity among like-minded followers), doesn't the task of finding unity seem even more complicated? I think it is, and it should be; certainly, it is nothing meant to be easy, and if it is, maybe the seeker of unity is oversimplifying a bit.
Too often in my walk, I have been guilty of "trading Truth for false unity" (thanks, Derek Webb!), and that kind of lie is not what we are meant to live. Thanks for the great post!
Char – I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with. My point was that people often mistake uniformity for unity. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me and and being able to talk about that. It is being told that I can't disagree or asked to keep my opinions to myself (for the sake of "unity") that really gets to me. Sure there are many times when I choose to be silent when I don't think starting an argument is appropriate. Other times I am fine being the sole minority opinion – as long as I am allowed to do that (as in not mocked or told to be quiet). Allowing others to share their opinions without agreeing with me is not the issue, it is assuming I have to be like them.
Julie,
May you never, ever, ever be like them and may your voice always be heard…
I probably read into some of the comments something that wasn't neccessarily there. I have friends that have quit trying because they can't take the backlash emotionally and I'm real sensitive to that reaction. So apologies if I went somewhere you weren't going…