Working for the church, first at the denominational level, then at the conference level, I am surprised at how often people will open their communication with me with the words, “You need to understand…”  A more narcissistic and ego-centric phrase may not exist, because the people who open with such a statement are not truly seeking understanding, but acquiescence.  Here is how the statement breaks down:

You — I am abdicating all responsibility for compromise or cooperation — the responsibility rests solely with “you”

Need to — must, should, ought to because I say so.  My wants, opinions, and desires must be the most important consideration, and the declarative indicates how important my position is

Understand — you surrender any opposition to my position and submit to my way of thinking.

Here are some examples from emails, letters, phone calls, and face-to-face encounters:

You must understand that if we let homosexuals in the church, I will leave!

You must understand that I left the church because of the way you treat gay and lesbian Christians.

You must understand that if you make political statements, you are violating your trust in the church.

You need to understand that people are tired of leaders who won’t take social stands and hide behind the Book of Discipline.

You need to understand that when you ordain women you are thumbing your nose at the Bible.

You need to understand that if you ordain gays, you will destroy the church.

You need to understand that if you support those liberals at Church and Society you leave us no choice but to withhold our apportionments.

You need to understand, if you keep wasting our money on stupid advertising campaigns we’re not going to keep sending in our apportionments.

You need to understand that real ministry happens at the local church level and we really don’t need you.

Okay, this tiny sample illustrates the problem: do what I think is right or I will take my ball and go home.  Church in no way is about “us,” it is simply about “me.”  I am not happy — you’re not doing what I think you ought to, therefore I will threaten to leave, withhold money, or I will work to split us up.  Real understanding…  (Contrast thesestatements with this note I received last week, “I struggle with some of the positions our church is taking.  I was distressed by news of an impending trial in our conference.  How can we work together to move forward?”  “I” and “Our” are much more accessible than “You!” offered in an accusing voice.)

Our self-centered entitlement culture, mistaking opinion for truth and personal preference for what is right and good, undermines everything noble in the church.  Unity and reconciliation are taken out of the equation.  My way or the highway defines a growing number of people’s attitudes in the church.  Either I receive everything exactly the way I want it, or else.

We all see this in little children.  It is essentially a maturity issue — which is what makes it so distressing in our adult church members.  Note I don’t say “Christians,” but church members.  Christianity, by definition, is a corporate and communal belief system.  We are the church.  Each individual is NOT a church unto him- or herself.  If there is no body, there is no Christ.  To be Christian means we must set aside childish ways and learn to play well with others — everyone on the playground.  So, Christians don’t behave this way, but church members — those who believe that they have joined a club and pay dues and are customers to be served — do.  We need to work on the transformation of church members into Christians (and Christians into disciples).

Churches for too long have lost their fundamental courage.  We are so scared that someone might leave that we tolerate horrendous behavior.  There is no accountability and widespread conflict avoidance.  We let everyone call their own shots.  Every member can decide for him-/herself what it means to be involved.  How many times do we witness a church ready to make a major decision and suddenly dozens of inactive members show up for the express purpose of voting against it?  Behaviors that would cause us to ground our own children run rampant throughout many congregations.  Passive-aggressive, aggressive-aggressive, and downright outrageous acting-out are normal.

Recently in the Wisconsin Annual Conference, a letter went out from our bishop in support of those families affected by action to eliminate collective bargaining at the state level.  All the letter did was remind our members and inform our communities that The United Methodist Church has long supported economic justice through collective bargaining.  It is part of our doctrine and polity.  It is in our Social Principles.  It is what The United Methodist Church believes and has adopted through its policy-making structures.  Oh, man, you should hear all the “you need to understand” responses to this letter!  Our bishop didn’t make this up — our whole denomination did.  The negative response to the position doesn’t indicate that there is anything wrong with the church, but that many of our members are fundamentally ignorant about what The United Methodist Church holds as basic doctrine and polity.  None of the critics feel that they “need to understand” anything beyond their own personal opinion.  They just feel that those in leadership “need to understand,” what they don’t like.

This is simply a cultural sign of the times.  Consumeristic, individualistic, materialistic, narcissistic, ego-centric “its-all-about-me-ism” dominates the scene.  There is never going to be a single church where everyone agrees and everyone believes the same things.  It is one of the defining features of Methodism — we make space at the table for the widest possible array of God’s children.  Ideally, we don’t threaten, we don’t judge, we don’t harass and harangue, and we don’t make the mistake of thinking that our faith is fundamentally “all about us” individually.  We strive to serve God.  I personally don’t care about conservative or liberal, straight or gay, married or divorced, male or female, biblical literalists or post-modern critics, ethnicity or maturity.  I didn’t sign on to serve a constituency or a caucus.  I signed on to serve God, and I believe God wants us all together, so I will continue to try my best to serve everyone.  Perhaps this means “I don’t understand…” or perhaps it does.

20 responses to “You Need to Understand”

  1. Disenchanted LIfelong Methodist Avatar
    Disenchanted LIfelong Methodist

    The narrow-mindedness and defensiveness of a few of these comments is why I left. I didn’t need to demand my own way, and I certainly didn’t need to whine that the Discipline didn’t say only what I thought it should, but the adversarial nature of less mature Christians made me feel like it just wasn’t worth fighting any more. Maybe I was immature, but it felt more like I was jaded and exhausted. It was easier to find enlightened Christians away from the UMC instead of within it. I wish I had known you back then!

  2. John Meunier Avatar
    John Meunier

    The exact nature of the Social Principles has always been unclear to me. The Principles themselves say they are not church law, but the Judicial Council in the last couple of years seemed to say otherwise.

    We have a terribly muddled doctrinal core and sense of doctrinal authority. What is essential? What is incidental?

    1. dave werner Avatar
      dave werner

      FWIW, i think this is the last paragraph of the Preface to the Social Principles (from the 2008 DISCIPLINE):

      “The Social Principles, while not to be considered church law, are a prayerful and thoughtful effort on the part of the General Conference to speak to the human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation as historically demonstrated in United Methodist traditions. They are a call to faithfulness and are intended to be instructive and persuasive in the best of the prophetic spirit. The Social Principles are a call to all members of The United Methodist Church to a prayerful, studied dialogue of faith and practice. (See ¶ 509.)”

      Whether “church law” or not, they seem to me to be among those things considered and presented by action of the General Conference, which speaks for The UMC. Personally, i wonder if our current high interest in “church law” may be a hindrance to discernment of God’s Spirit at work in the world today.

  3. Shannon Avatar
    Shannon

    I agree with the substance of what you’ve said, with two caveats.

    First, multiple denominations confuse this issue. Maybe some people aren’t a good fit for the UMC. When I saw my gay and lesbian friends crying after a general conference, I realized I wasn’t a good fit for the UMC. I wanted to be a place where I might have *minor* disagreements, but I didn’t want to be somewhere where I had *major* disagreements.

    Where does this line get drawn? I don’t have those answers. I know that despite my M.Div. at a UMC seminary, my adoration of John Wesley, and my deep respect for the quadrilateral, I took my toys and went home. I don’t know whether that was maturity or immaturity, but I know that I’m at peace in the UCC because the questions of social justice (women, gays, exploitation, immigration) are largely settled there. I can take my gay friends to church and know that they aren’t going to be told that they’re going to hell. Since I don’t believe they are going to hell, that’s pretty important to me.

    Second, I would always caution against suggesting–even indirectly–that someone saying the wrong phrase gives us the excuse to switch them off. You need to understand that some people’s hearts are in the right places, even if their words don’t match up as well as they ought… because sometimes “you need to understand” just means “I don’t think you understand my position, and before we can dialogue, we at least need to grasp where the other is.”

  4. David Carroll Avatar
    David Carroll

    Man, you’re a pill. I know you believe everything here and I also know you wrote this in an unusually provocative way to stir up comments. As to Mr./Rev. Pogue — just because we may disagree with something in the Discipline doesn’t mean it doesn’t belong there are carry as much weight as the rest of it…

    1. Creed Pogue Avatar
      Creed Pogue

      The Social Principles are NOT church law. Therefore, they should NOT be in the Discipline.

      1. Dan R. Dick Avatar
        Dan R. Dick

        Doctrine is not limited to “rules” or “laws” but includes “principles” and “teachings.” We don’t get to simply pick what we like, but need to embrace the whole.

  5. Daniel James Dick Avatar

    Coming into disagreement with the stand or direction that an individual church or church denomination is taking and leaving that church is not necessarily narcissistic, selfish, or in opposition to real Christian unity. And that is part of the reason the church I am a member of did not agree to become part of a denomination where the headquarters owns all the churches and calls all the shots.

    I visited one church and quietly stood up and walked out when the preacher began to put down Jews blaming them for the world’s problems. I do not feel I have a right to take any of the income God has enabled me to obtain through work and squander it on a church that calls Jesus Christ a liar by calling Holy Matrimony what Jesus explicitly called adultery. Nor do I think it is right to continue fellowship with a church that would operate in dishonesty and cowardice and betrayal to the point of coddling anyone into hell who is enslaved into any kind of sin including homosexuality, porn addiction, alcoholism, adultery, ingratitude toward God, hypocrisy, cowardice, deceit, or fighting and contending for sin against all God has done to call us out of it. It would seem such insincere people would condemn Jesus Christ Himself to hell rather than repent of their sin or admit that their Christianity is nothing but a lie and a patronizing and mockery of all that God has said and sent His Son to die for. We’re not called to pussyfoot around and tell little white lies to coddle people into hell and call that love. It’s the greatest betrayal and backstabbing of so-called friends and loved ones that the universe has ever known. God has called us to speak the truth in love though it hurts. But, the biggest and most narcissistic and cowardly reason behind our pussyfooting around is that we are cowards afraid that if the sins of another person are brought out in the open, then we will be held to a higher standard and will be judge for our sins as well, and frankly most people who call themselves Christians are liars who love their sin too much to give it up for the sake of Christ. They love their sin more than they love God. No. The word is not “they”. The word is “We”. Or “Me”. Before I can minister to someone else, I have to surrender to Christ with a kind of sincerity that would allow God to speak honorably of my intentions without becoming Himself a liar. Or else, I will have to face Him on judgment day and hear a truth about me I won’t want to hear, and that truth will be that I was ready to contend against God for the love of sin.

    And that is exactly the condition most of the churches today are in. If that sounds judgmental, so be it. What side will you be on? And don’t make it out to be about me because it isn’t. If I am judgmental or not, hypocritical or not, avant garde or not, brave or cowardly, narcissistic or unselfish, kind or mean, I can be the worst demon in hell but if the words I have said are true and we are all held accountable for what we know, and if God will speak truthfully on judgment day, what truth will that be that God will speak about you? About me? About us? Will your sin excuse me or mine excuse you? Will God respond when we claim all our sins were socially acceptable? Or will He say, “Depart”?

    If you or I live in such a way as one more soul is damned to hell by their response to our example of hypocritical and artificial Christianity, will we be held guiltless for that loss? Are we to consider it more loving to pretend we’re all OK, to run off the mantra, “You’re OK; I’m OK”? Are we to live and let die?

    Does loving people mean protecting the sinner’s path to hell and pretending it leads to heaven so they’ll be happy on the way to hell? Does it mean we will “lovingly” go along with them on the path to hell? Or does it mean we will pray, surrender our hearts to God and ask God to search our hearts to find if there is any wicked way within us we have not repented of so that we will not cause anyone to fall by our sin?

    If one change in our life could lead one more soul into salvation, would we do it if it were our spouse? Our child? Would we do it for the love of Christ knowing that someone else might be loved as much by Jesus as ourselves? Would we do it for ten souls? Would we value those ten souls more than our convenience and comfort? Would we do it for a hundred souls? A thousand? A million?

    Can we really know for sure whether the first step of sincere repentance will or will not bring about a cascade of repentance and revival that may sweep the nation and the world?

    Or would we dodge the thought with distractions and theological game playing?

    In ten minutes will there be any change in your life for the love of God?

  6. dave werner Avatar
    dave werner

    Besides the fact that i think this is one of your better blog entries (but remember that i’m retired and getting a bit memory-deficient), i think you’re on target about a major challenge/problem with us.

    i’ve found it very hard to convince some folks to use “I language” rather than “you language.” i’ve been thinking lately that in church circles that might be a sign of an overbearing reliance on what i think is a circular argument: that if the Bible says it is truth, then it is (and i understand that truth), and “You need to understand….” Yet, often people in our congregations will respond at that neighborly level to meet needs of people they know or people about whom they hear at church, and the response is direct and quite apart from any sort of “faith test.”

    Our jumbled world would benefit ISTM from a straightforward response of gracious love from many of us.

    As for Bishop Lee’s letter regarding the Wisconsin protests, i can very truthfully say that i found her letter to be one of the best things coming from the Conference in a long time!

  7. Creed Pogue Avatar
    Creed Pogue

    “basic doctrine or polity”????

    I agree and sympathize with the Wisconsin strikers and even the “11” but I wouldn’t try to say that support for collective bargaining is part of our basic doctrine. The Social Principles and the Book of Resolutions create a great deal of heat but precious little light. They have devolved to a point where general agencies and others prooftext out of them to support the projects THEY want to spend apportionment dollars on OR those who want Richard Land to run our social witness use the more half-baked ones to make their points.

    We would be far better off if that was handled at the annual conference level where we can at least ask the question the following year, “What fruits?”

    It would be refreshing if when we talk about Rev. DeLong we remember that she hasn’t been in a pulpit for years and SHE chose to explicitly and publicly admit to violating the Discipline to get a show trial.

    1. Cindy Thompson Avatar
      Cindy Thompson

      Creed, I believe there is so much more to all that has happened to get us to the sad place in Wisconsin where one of our most gifted (by the Holy Spirit) pastors is facing a denominational trial. It is not my place to tell that story, and I don’t know the entire story, but please be open to the possibility that it has nothing to do with Amy seeking a show trial.

      (I self-edited, to add “I believe” in the interest of civil discussion)

      1. Creed Pogue Avatar
        Creed Pogue

        It seems that Amy is doing a “you need to understand” since she disclosed her partnership and that she officiated at a ceremony on her annual report form. SHE chose to put it on there.

        She has been out of the pulpit for years now.

        Isn’t this the very archetype of “show trial.” Remember, Scopes wanted the monkey trial! But, it won’t result in a change in the Discipline in this case. However, at a time where there are a bunch of issues at stake for those who believe that The UMC is a good part of the Kingdom and should continue, we can argue relatively minor issues instead.

    2. Wesley White Avatar

      I’m curious how Rev. DeLong cropped up here. It feels like a preemptive staking out of territory.

      Ah, yes,
      “we remember” ——– you
      “she chose to violate” —- need to
      “show trial” ———– understand

      1. Creed Pogue Avatar
        Creed Pogue

        Glad you figured that out Wesley. You are obviously a brilliant and perceptive individual.

        I was actually responding to Dan’s mention of it. I know, of course, that wasn’t a “preemptive staking out of territory.”

      2. Wesley White Avatar

        With too much pollen in the head I will take the references to brilliance and perceptivity as encouragement to keep trying for them since they certainly don’t pertain today. This is much better than allowing my off-kilter self to respond to its temptation to hear sarcasm where I would hope none was intended.

        I think I finally see where I went astray regarding the trial reference. It took me a half dozen rereads to see what I missed early on was the cause of my curiosity. I read Dan’s trial reference to be about responding from a position of “I” and “our” rather than “you”. Thus the word “trial” became invisible for the first reads. You seem to have taken the example to be about the trial itself and responded accordingly from your current assessment.

        This trying to be on the same page is difficult, particularly when my head is stuffy. I hope to do better the next time around.

Leave a reply to Cindy Thompson Cancel reply