As I continue to listen to the rhetoric of politics these days, I keep hearing a phrase repeated over and over again from either side of the political aisle, "We must do the will of the people." The negative phrase is also kicked around quite a bit, "Such and such isn't doing the will of the people."
Usually, the person making the commentary is citing evidence from the latest political poll. Oddly enough, when that same poll shows something to the contrary of this person's belief, the phrase, "You can't trust polls.", gets bandied around rather quickly as well. I guess the will of the people only counts when they vote in your favor. :-)
Yet, there is something quite bothersome about elected and other leaders trying to satisfy "The Will of the People." Not that I am suggesting that the will and opinion of people isn't important, but...
Let me first cite a biblical example from Exodus 32:
When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron and said to him, ‘Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.’ 2Aaron said to them, ‘Take off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.’ 3So all the people took off the gold rings from their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4He took the gold from them, formed it in a mould, and cast an image of a calf; and they said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’
Mind you, this was only 40 days after the people of Israel promised to serve only God and obey His commandments--the first one being you shall have no other gods and the second you shall not make any idols. Two strikes less than 40 days after making a solemn oath. And this was the will of the people.
And what did Aaron do?
As the default "leader" (and I use that term loosely), he simply did the will of the people.
If you would like, you can read the consequences as to what happened a little later in Exodus 32. It's not pretty.
But I wonder what would have happened if Aaron hadn't done the will of the people? What if Aaron would have stood firm and reminded them of the promises they made before God? Would there have been a different outcome? Well, if a frog had wings...
It seems to me leadership, whether political or in the church is more than simply doing the will of the people.
The will of the people can be very fickle. Many of us who are clergy have been invited to lead a congregation under the premise the congregation actually wants to grow. And our initial contacts with people prove this to be the case. However, as we delve into the mission and ministry of the church, we tend to find another group of people who are really content to keep the congregation just the way it is. Eventually, one of those two groups is going to get upset. How does a pastor then do the will of the people?
In my own congregation, we faced this with the August 2009 ELCA national assembly's decision to allow congregations to call a practicing homosexual to serve as pastor. There were some in my congregation who applauded the decision and were enthusiastic about it. There were also many who couldn't believe such a thing had passed, and they wanted action to show their opposition to the decision. (Simply getting it off their chest by writing letters, etc. wasn't going to cut it.) As pastor and the one most looked at for leadership, I was in a bind. There was simply no way I could follow the will of the people. The will was divided.
But I believe a true leader does not try to sense the direction the crowd is moving and then run to the front. A leader leads. A leader sticks his or her neck out--even if it means it will cost him or her. A leader digs down deep, stands on principle, and offers to show the way. He or she remains connected to the people; however. The leader doesn't make choices and decisions without listening, being available, and working on relationships even with those he or she disagrees with. A leader doesn't ever intentionally cut off.
As I thought long and deep and prayed in hours of prayer regarding what was happening in my congregation, there were several things which I held dear, most of them backed up by Scripture:
1) I believed it was unacceptable to lose members over the 2009 decision. I didn't believe it was acceptable to lose those who were against the decision, and I didn't believe it was acceptable to lose those who were very much in favor of it. I wouldn't hold it against anyone who felt like they couldn't stick around because the decision went against their principles, but it would be their decision. I would try to chart a course which allowed differing parties to work together, even if it meant each side didn't get their way completely. (Galatians 5:16-26)
2) I believed the church can be a place where differences of interpretation and opinion could be held in dynamic tension. I maintained and still do, Christianity is not about getting along with people who believe and think exactly as you do. That's the easy part. Christians are called to love and get along with those who are different than us. (Luke 10:25-37)
3) I believed in seeking to understand where each group of people were coming from in their understandings. Even though I knew it wouldn't necessarily change my mind about the decision, I wanted folks to know I respected where they were coming from. (Matthew 7:12)
4) I believed the congregation has a more important and broader mission to adhere to--one that shouldn't be side tracked by who supposedly can and cannot preach and lead other congregations. Sure, there are boundaries that must be upheld, but other congregations can be responsible for themselves. We would define what we believed even if it put us at odds with the national church. (Matthew 28:16-20)
5) If you read my post on "Courage or Cowardice", you also saw my principles regarding running away from a problem or an issue. Simply leaving the national church was not acceptable to me. Cutting off support completely was not acceptable to me. I know the Lutheran church was born out of schism, but it was born that way not because of choice. Luther would not have left the Roman Church if it would have been up to him. However, the Roman Church chose to excommunicate him. As far as I could tell, the national church wasn't looking to excommunicate me or my congregation (at least not yet insert smiley face here), so I had no desire to sever or cut off that relationship. (Galatians 5:16-26)
6) I believed my relationships with individual members were important. Some pastors may not have this problem, but I genuinely love and respect the members of my congregation. Yes, even those who stretch me in my thinking and in my patience. I genuinely do love and respect them, and being honest with myself (and with my readers) it hurts when some move away or leave the congregation. It saddens me greatly when I don't see someone in worship for long periods of time. When folks return, my heart gives a leap. I know I cannot tell people what to do and how often to attend church and whether or not even to be a part of my congregation, but I do miss them when they aren't there. I know I cannot keep everyone happy, but I do seek to leave myself open to concerns. And, if there is a way I can help a relationship improve or save a relationship without compromising my principles, I will seek to do it. (1 Corinthians 9: 17-23)
Given these deeply held beliefs about the church and my relationship with others, I offered a pathway forward. A path which I knew would not completely satisfy, but would allow folks to continue to be a part of this congregation with integrity no matter where they came down on the issue. I suggested we remove our ELCA Synod Benevolence from our budget and establish a special fund for the benevolence instead. Folks who were against the decision could now make their voice known. Folks who were in favor of the decision could still contribute to the wider ministry of the church. The congregation could remain in the ELCA, and we could put the issue to rest and move forward.
I knew the decision probably wouldn't be received well by the synod offices. I knew we'd hear from them.
We did.
But we are going to hold course and see what happens.
So far, the results are very positive.
We've lost one family, but the discontent seems to have eased. We seem to be back on track.
Not because the will of the people was done.
No one got their way.
But because we sought a way that allowed us to be the church--through leadership; through understanding; through prayer; through compromise.
We gave up our will, so that the greater good might be accomplished.
And, hopefully, that greater good, was not our will, but God's.
No comments:
Post a Comment