One of the things I discovered during my years of ordained ministry is that the average person in the pews possesses enormous wisdom. I also discovered that many of my colleagues think the opposite.
Almost without exception, my experience is that if you are open with people and give them the facts, they almost always make the right decision.
So why do so many of my colleagues seem to disagree with this simple premise? Perhaps it’s because so many, flush with the latest speculative theories advanced by their seminary professors, patronizingly assume the average person in the pews lacks the requisite sophistication to judge rightly.
This accords with what I see in politics today. The elites among us disparage the average citizen as unenlightened and ignorant, as hopelessly sexist, racist, and xenophobic.
Such benighted souls, therefore, require some sort of “re-education,” or, as I was taught in seminary, “consciousness-raising,” to fathom the superior sagacity of progressive elite opinion.
To the contrary, I find most Americans outside the overheated political and intellectual precincts to be genuinely good-hearted, who unfailingly seek to do what’s right. They are generous, fair-minded, and tolerant, possessing both common sense and innate wisdom.
Based on its belief in the intrinsic value and worth of each person, my own New England Congregationalism (now part of the UCC) has a long and laudable tradition of consensus-building.
In fact, in its earliest days, it was not uncommon for church meetings to last indefinitely as the membership prayerfully awaited the Holy Spirit’s urgings. Every voice needed to be heard, in part because nobody knew through whom the Spirit might speak.
Somewhere along the line that changed. Today power politics seems to dominate. And since we have a democratic polity, with decisions made by vote of the congregation, getting the majority, i.e. winning, too often seems the focus and goal.
Forget consensus-building. Goodbye to spiritual discernment and hello Robert’s Rules of Order. No need for prayerful, attentive listening. Move quickly to the vote and secure the desired, predetermined outcome.
The problem, to state the obvious, is that this often leads to conflict.
To be clear, I’m not saying discord in the church has never before existed, but something does seem to have changed. My brother-in-law, a retired pastor, once joked, referencing the notable increase in church conflict and short-term pastorates, that pretty soon all we’d have are interim pastors. And that was back in the 90s.
I concluded long ago that one of the main reasons for such conflict is the steady importation of secular ideas into the church.
That the church consists of people who live “out there” in the world is hardly new. Yet as our culture grows ever more hostile to religion, the church needs to meet this challenge by becoming hyper-vigilant in maintaining its boundaries and guarding its unique, gospel-centering way of life. Without this, the church will increasingly act and react in ways not too dissimilar from the culture surrounding it.
An example of this problem can be seen in denominational leaders continually pushing “hot-button” issues onto the local church. Mirroring the ways of the world, the ensuing discussions quickly devolve into power politics with a side of political correctness. Things go south quickly.
That’s not to say these issues necessarily lack merit, though often they do. It’s just that we need to be intentional about HOW we discuss them, rather than being singularly focused on the desired outcome.
It is also helpful to know where our ideas come from. Despite the naivete of some pastors, many of the assumptions commonly parlayed in our churches today come not from the gospel but from specious, secular sources.
Back in college, in the early 70s, there was a big brouhaha over the possible appointment of Herbert Marcuse to teach at the school. He was one of the reigning academic darlings of the day.
In particular, I remember a comment made by our university president who was quoted in the student newspaper as saying: “It has been reported that I would give Marcuse the grade of “F” as an intellectual. But that’s not true. I’d give him a “D- -.”
At the time I thought this was just terrible. Today I’m proud he took that stand.
Marcuse was one of a group of prominent intellectuals who fled Nazi Germany in the 1930s, a group that came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” Noted for their radical Marxist leanings, they nonetheless made their presence palpably felt here in the U.S., at least among intellectuals, if not the public at large.
Following the lead of the Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, Marcuse similarly concluded that pure, unadulterated Marxism would never fly here. Unlike a backward and corrupt Russia, Western societies were too resilient and too developed to succumb to the lure of communism.
This assumption formed the basis of what came to be known as “critical theory,” i.e. that a direct assault on Western culture was futile. An alternate strategy was needed to dismantle bourgeois society indirectly, stealthily, circuitously, from the inside, piece by piece.
This strategy held that the West’s dominant institutions and beliefs needed to be criticized and dismantled, including language itself, until modern society was sufficiently “deconstructed,” in pieces, incapable of defending itself from being rebuilt along Marxist lines.
Marcuse, considered the “father of the New Left,” was nothing if not enthusiastic. Among other things, he proposed using social strife as a means of dismantling societal structures.
“Victim groups” should be formed to exploit and exacerbate social strife (“intersectionality” anyone?). Concepts such as “diversity” and “multiculturalism” were employed effectively to weaken the West’s confidence in its own unique heritage, institutions, and beliefs.
Perhaps his most audacious idea, however, was in promoting what he called “partisan tolerance,” an oxymoron if ever there was one. (George Orwell, call your office!)
According to Marcuse, classic tolerance had failed because it allows all ideas to be heard, especially those he and his fellow travelers deemed “wrong.” Traditional tolerance thus becomes “repressive tolerance,” since it permits the expression of “unjust” views that perpetuate exploitation and oppression.
Toleration must be redefined to exclude such oppression. One should only entertain speech that uniformly rejects established societal norms of “oppression.” Herein lies the seeds of modern-day “political correctness” and “speech codes.”
To be fair, most people think this stuff is nuts. And it is. But go to any elite college (or seminary) these days and you will discover that critical theory, political correctness, speech codes, intersectionality, multiculturalism, and deconstructionism, to name but a few, are very much alive and well, and have been for at least three decades.
It is not unreasonable, therefore, to assume that since this is what is being taught in our finest colleges and seminaries, such ideas will find their way into our cultural institutions, not least the church.
Of course, in the church we’re apt to clean up or camouflage the language a bit, even “Christianize” it. But on close inspection, what passes for gospel truth is often a barely disguised reinterpretation of critical theory, the same kind Jesus undoubtedly would have championed enthusiastically.
One pernicious effect is that the church seems to have replaced consensus-building with power politics. The former seeks to include all voices, recognizing the inherent worth of all perspectives and opinion. Indeed discernment requires nothing less.
The latter already knows what’s “right” and rejects outright any need for airing the “wrong” points of view. And, of course, when you know you’re right, there’s little incentive to risk an open discussion where your righteous beliefs just might lose out.
I’ve seen far too many church discussions that appeal overtly to “diversity” and “openness” to all points of view. Yet such claims often strike me as mere window dressing, or happy talk, disguising a predetermined outcome, irrespective of its intrinsic merits. The end result is the loss of any modicum of genuine consensus, and a subtle disrespect for the will of the people.