In my office, I advise dysfunctional families to talk more often, not less. In fact, I often suggest that they go through a demanding, disciplined, painful counseling process of finding out how they can move forward together into the future as a family. As they do so, they may discover that staying together is no longer a possibility — too many differences of values and opinions, too many harsh words said that can’t be taken back or forgotten, too many feelings trampled upon. However, more times than not, the process of talking, crying and laughing together ignites a new passion for remaining a family.
In our denominational family, some people in the family don’t really care for some other members of the family. So what is new about that in a family system?. Does our denominational family have the courage and faith to go through the type of systemic family counseling we routinely recommend to families in our congregations? Can we practice what we preach about working through problems?
Clearly, we are a family with huge differences of beliefs, values and practices. I compare two large factions in our denomination to 1) a revival tent and 2) a sanctuary with one entrance. I am part of those living in the revival tent. Our congregation’s ministry has focused on the unchurched. No walls. No boundaries. We want anyone to be able to walk in or out freely. If we can keep the unchurched in the tent (put up walls and they will run away), they will grow and mature as spiritual beings. They may even reach fairly orthodox understandings of our faith.
Of course, all of our unchurched new members say “I do” to the question “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?” However, in preparation for that moment, we stress to them the variety of understandings within the Bible and throughout church history regarding that crucial question. Paul Tillich certainly did not acknowledge the lordship and saving work of the Christ with the same understanding as Karl Barth, nor, for that matter, did Paul and the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Paul had a far more universal understanding of Jesus’ salvific work than the Jerusalem faithful).
Others in our denomination see the church not as a revival tent but as a sanctuary with one entrance. To enter, individuals must share the common faith of those already in the church. New members enter a well-defined space/tradition. The membership question is spelled out in considerable detail with limited room for personal interpretation. Other issues relating to the authority of Scripture, the Trinity, etc. are also defined carefully.
Does our denominational family want to live in a revival tent or a one-door sanctuary? I don’t think that is the issue. The issue is “Can we remain a family with our different understandings of God, Christ and the church? Can some of us live in tents and allow others to live in their one-door sanctuaries and vice-versa?”
I have known and counseled many families divided by huge differences. However, many find inspired, inspiring ways, in the name of love, to stay together. Is it too much to expect a portion of Jesus’ extended family to do the same? It will be the hardest work our denomination has done since the 1920s. But isn’t that what families are sometimes about — hard work, healthy fights, a discussion on grievances and hopes?
Of course, some say the bottom line on annual vs. biennial meetings is money. They make the argument that we will save money by meeting less often. However, in our present state of family discord, we will just get in a nasty argument over how the saved money should be spent!
Meeting less as a family is not an answer to our problems. I will vote no to the amendment coming from the General Assembly asking us to do so. I am also praying that we will seek out organizational experts who can help us design a process for family/denominational counseling.
Posted Oct. 10, 2002
John Wimberly is pastor of Western church, Washington, D.C.
