Intermission: “Just when I thought I was out – They pull me back in (again)”
It’s been several months since I posted on this blog. I was in the middle of a rant.
But it appears that I got lost in harmony and chilled out for a while or as Leonard Cohen put it:
“I was 60 years old—just a kid with a crazy dream. Since then I’ve taken a lot of Prozac, Paxil, Wellbutrin, Ritalin, … I’ve also studied the religions and philosophies, but cheerfulness kept breaking through”.
So it has been with me since I last put fingers to keys – I just cheered up for a bit and decided that I didn’t need to keep “having a go”.
Unfortunately though there’s a story that’s been floating around FaceAche and other social media platforms for a couple of days now that knocked off one of my healing scabs.
“Pastor Jeremiah Steepek (pictured below) transformed himself into a homeless person and went to the 10,000 member church that he was to be introduced as the head pastor at that morning…………..
Read it here: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151544320186935&set=a.10150901926356935.415097.26433931934&type=1
It’s not because it’s not a good story, but because to all intents and purposes it seems to have been created to as a sledge hammer to crack a nut. That’s not really the main beef with me either. My main concern is that it appears that it is a made up story by some pastor somewhere as a manipulative tool to crow bar in a piece of scripture into their weekly sermon. That too aint that bad - modern parables for modern times – it makes sense to me. BUT I have 2 major problems that have rattled my cage.
1: The way that the story is being bandied about by would be do gooders who haven’t even bothered to check out the facts and are happy to accept the story at face value with whoops of delight of “Amens, hallelujahs, brilliants and awesomes (this is in the UK so god knows what happening in the States).
I couldn’t help myself and I got a little involved on a friends thread where some people were getting quite moist over how wonderful the story was. My point was that it was actually a terrible story a terrible indictment of the state of the church. This was met by a “ah, but it wouldn’t happen in my church”…………. How naive.
I was going to let it go, but I couldn’t, so instead of upsetting folk on my friends thread I have taken to my own blog instead to get it off me chest.
Just a couple minutes today, searching the web confirmed what I had thought. This is a scam, a hoax. There is no such pastor, there is no such church. I was angered that the story was incomplete, that we do not find out if there was an actual transformation in the pastors congregation and to what extent and for how long? Too many unanswered questions. It is as a suspected just another case of manipulation by the church to its followers.
The message on the surface “seems” sound. The methodology of telling lies is shit.
This leads neatly into point 2:
2: The pastor and his “elders who were in on it” used the scam to entrap their own congregation. To catch them out. Then as if that wasn’t bad enough the pastor used his illustrative sermon to shame his congregation. Well shame on you Pastor Sheepshit. Shame on you for taking a bunch of imperfect people (your church) and making them feel shame. As if that was going to motivate them you hypocritical prick. Sure maybe they came back next week with a new attitude and intent to be more kind (just in case they were caught out again) but that would be a temporary response a knee jerk so as not to be embarrassed at church (again) rather than permanent transformation.
But that begs a question doesn’t it? Did they come back?
I certainly wouldn’t have. I wouldn’t want to be part of a church AND give it my money if I thought the leader was going to beat me up, shame me, embarrass me, make me feel guilty and then try and justify it with a piece of scripture from the bible. What a shit, and I would have told him where to put his tramps outfit in no uncertain terms.
Jesus used many methods to get his points across but to my knowledge he never lied to or abused those who had chosen to follow him.
No doubt, the congregation and the leaders had a problem concerning their attitude to the poor or less fortunate and that it needed to be addressed, maybe that’s why they had needed a new pastor, maybe that is why Steepek was recruited, but how did a church of 10,000 get to be into such a sorry state? The whole leadership was at fault and that must’ve infected the whole church.
But unfortunately the new pastor put himself on a pedestal. He tells his new congregation that they are not yet disciples of Jesus, thus implying that he is, thus implying that he is better than them………….. Pastor Sheepshit doesn’t deserve to lead anything, let alone a church full of vulnerable people. Pastor Sheepshit is a disgrace, a terrible role model, abuser and manipulator and given that he was able to persuade his elders to go along with his scam, then one can only assume that they are just as bad.
The church was out of the frying pan and into the fire.
It is several years now since I began the deconstruction of my faith : It began when I lost my trust in the leadership of my church organisation and became suspicious as to their motives. Suspicious that they appeared to carry agendas and that those who had the biggest badge we're offered the greatest support.
I realised that if I stayed then I would become as religious as they had become.
I realised that their biggest marketing fault was to call themselves a movement. They are not. They are as static and self centred as the churches they appear to eclipse. Their disguise is “growth”. Creating more churches (they call it church planting). They are not new churches really though, merely homogeneous reproductions of clones with near identical shiny restored plasticine pastors who are compliant to the pruning of their leaders. - I would spare those new plants the reality of abandonment and the removal of support and friendship if their vine fails to grow - I've witnessed it several times.
Since leaving the church I have lost my sense of certainty about the theology of black and white thinking and the surety of absolute truth.
I have learned that the freedom that the church teaches is not absolute. The shackles that are removed by joining the Christian club are replaced by the bonds of their leadership’s authority.
It appears that freedom is just a different cage. A cage of illusion where different food is provided on condition that one conforms and performs.
One of my favourite authors, Paulo Coelho said this:
“Absolute freedom does not exist; what does exist is the freedom to choose anything you like and then commit yourself to that decision.”
And this is true. The control of the churches is only possible if we allow them to control us, to feed us and train us into replicas of themselves. We do have a choice.
I suppose what I am trying to explain is that I am not against the concept of freedom of religion or more accurately of religious conscience but quite the opposite ; freedom FROM religion - freedom from the controlling rules of those who would tell us that they know best because of the way they choose to read and interpret the bible.
I suppose I’m looking for freedom of people to follow their god and to practice their faith in their own way should they choose to climb inside a church shaped cage - for whatever reason that might be, for example company or community.
The church I used to be part of had the tag line, "belong before you believe". I used to whole heartedly support that phrase. I still do on one level in that people should be free enough to attend church meetings without the fear of agenda. But as I look at the phrase now I see it filled with agenda. It is incredibly presumptuous that one day you will believe.
For all the years I was a member (whatever that means) and for the years I lead a church, my wife attended as a non practicing member i.e. as a non believer. She was accepted as part of the family, but there was always an under current of " isn't it a shame" from certain quarters of the community.
Why? Certainly she had not accepted Jesus as her “personal Lord and Saviour” nor said the precociously patronising "sinners prayer" - all church traditions, not biblical by the way - but Audrey was every bit as committed to the ethos of Jesus teachings as ANY other in our church. But in the eyes of the religious she is going to hell to burn in the eternal flames of damnation along with Ghandi and probably Oskar Schindler.
My arse! (I refer you to a book from my earlier blogging by Rob Bell - "Love Wins" which deconstructs the religious concept of heaven and hell).
CONCLUSION: Maybe I’m being too harsh….. The STORY was true – Jesus told stories to illustrate points and allow his followers to rethink (repent) – we call them parables:
“There was a man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him…”
“A sower went out to sow…”
“A man found a treasure hidden in a field…”
“A woman took some leaven…”
“There was a man who had two sons…”
The modern parable we began with was made up to make a point and allow a congregation to make a change.
The big difference was that Jesus did not set out to fool people nor to make them feel unworthy, quite the opposite – people were taught to think for themselves and seek to change.
Neither did Jesus set himself up as Lord – others attempted to elevate him but he rejected status – we and certainly our pastors should never ever suggest that we / they are better than their congregations – even if they outwardly appear to do better things.
“I’m not a big fan of guilt. In John 10:10, Jesus says He has come to give us life to the fullest, not guilt to the fullest” - Shane Claiborne.
All of which will finally lead me to the final instalment of this 4 part trilogy:
The Concept of "Life to the Full"………………………..
No comments:
Post a Comment