To meet or not to meet - with the pastoral staff
Posted on June 27th, 2007 by catalyst into the The City Church categoryThe Seattle Newspaper that reviewed several Seattle churches a couple weeks ago, recently received this letter from the Church Council in response to their article:
Dear Stranger Editor,
I’ve now spoken to several pastors whose congregations were featured as part of your “Month of Sundays” article. Most of the pastors are disappointed, some are hurt, others are angry. Would it be possible to have a meeting with Dan Savage and other Stranger executives so we could discuss this and other issues? My hope is that it would be possible to build a more positive relationship between congregations in Seattle and The Stranger newspaper, and I believe a meeting could help. It looks to me like we could gather ten or more pastors of the churches you covered and that a meeting might be very helpful to us all.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to your response.
Rev. Sandy Brown
Executive Director
Church Council of Greater Seattle
To which the editor responds:
Dear Sandy,
I don’t see the point of a meeting. Anyone upset by “Month of Sundays” is welcome to send a letter, which we will publish. But a sit-down to discuss “this and other issues”? Can you be more specific about what those “other issues” are? And how a meeting would be helpful to you? I certainly don’t see how it would be helpful to us.
The package stands on its own: some of the pieces were respectful, some were irreverent.
I’m frequently disappointed, hurt, and angered by things that are said by pastors in churches all over Seattle. I doubt very much that Seattle pastors would be willing to sit down with me once a week to “discuss” their most recent sermons simply because I was disappointed, hurt, or angry.
It wouldn’t occur to me to ask for such a meeting, however, because I recognize that Seattle pastors have a right to say whatever they like. I trust that Seattle pastors recognize that we have a right to publish whatever we like.
Sincerely,
Dan Savage
Editor
The Stranger
Couldn't have said it better myself.
(A tip of the cap to C-Sneth)
RSS feed for posts
June 27th, 2007 at 10:58 am
If anything, the editor should be scolded for printing those abysmally bad excuses for journalism. It was like reading 8th-grade reports from a field trip, only they got to swear a lot. City Church actually lucked out in that the reviewer seemed to put some rational thought into their analysis. Then again, it might have been easier for CC to ignore it if they were the subject of one of the reviews that talked incessantly about bird poop and sex.
On a related note, if you feel that Mr. Savage has a right to print what he wants, why bother defending the blog? Most of your critics are the very kinds of people you write about (against) so why bend over backwards to ease your conscience? You’ve already defended your position quite well in your previous entry, so I might be beating a dead horse here. I just thought it interesting that you feel the need to take a 2 week break to satisfy your conscience about publishing your opinion, but then you applaud those who give a hearty “F you” to churches who complain about them doing something similar to what you do (blogging = journalism?). And as far as the similarities go, you’ve been much more insightful and objective than those sorry-ass “investigative reports” and you actually care about the outcome. I realize you have a higher moral standard here, but I just wonder if you should be careful not to let people (especially opponents) raise that standard artificially high.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I wrote the above comment thinking Reformed Pope made this entry, but it was Catalyst. So maybe my thoughts about defending the blog are not so relevant, but whatever.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Yeah. JP and I don’t see eye to eye on this issue. I don’t feel there’s any need to defend the blog. Not saying it’s perfect, but it’s ultimately a good thing. So my conscious is clean. (For whatever reason, JP forgets it’s just a blog not a church, and that he isn’t really a pastor.)
I also have no interest in meeting with the pastoral staff, but that’s more because of my experiences in high school. The meetings are meaningless. They are merely a chance for you to beg for forgiveness.
As for Savage’s Month of Sunday’s, I didn’t think the reviews were that great either, but I did think they provided an interesting outside look at how churches operate. And I also am arrogant enough to think the paper might have gotten the idea from this blog. …just saying, it’s possible…
Lastly, it’s summer… I’m kind of low on blogging material.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Anyone who reads Dan Savage’s weekly advice column in The Portland Mercury knows that he is one of the most crude and flippant writers (I find his column amusing and enjoy reading it).
It seemed clear to me that many of those write ups were written by people aiming to amuse those who hold the same opinions as they do. Basically they were writing to the audience that they themselves belong to. This is only annoying because there are many people who won’t/don’t understand this and think that is a commonly held thought/opinion.
Also, many of the comments made under the letters (to editor and from pastor), intimated that to believe in God was to throw all logic, reason and even sanity out the window. This statement is incredibly ignorant for people who probably consider themselves intelligent.
I think the problem is people clinging to extreme opposite ideas — there is a middle ground that is much more interesting, thought provoking and inclusive than either extreme side can claim.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:05 am
(Former Inner Circle Member said: “I just thought it interesting that you feel the need to take a 2 week break to satisfy your conscience about publishing your opinion, but then you applaud those who give a hearty “F you” to churches who complain about them doing something similar to what you do (blogging = journalism?).”)
I agree with you it is interesting, even perhaps contradictory. But I welcomed his decision to take a peek inside himself, just the same. To quote Pope, from Defending the Blogosphere: “Here is the conclusion I came to regarding this blog: We spend way too much time focusing on the negative side of Christianity.”
I think it’s great that JohnPaul has an active conscience — a seemingly rare commodity these days — that it prompted him to take a step back from all of this, that he LISTENED to it, that he acted upon it, and has apparently adjusted his attitude accordingly.
What he said above mirrors my thoughts exactly; we DO spend way too much time focusing on the negative. I know from personal experience how it can infect one’s total mindset and attitude in a matter of minutes, poisoning one’s outlook, causing them to have a jaded, cynical view of life. I’m not saying we shouldn’t recognize the bad stuff, and deal with it when necessary, but it becomes exceedingly easy to DWELL upon it, letting it fester up within us. I’m thinking of a recent post where someone asks if they should confront someone else who had offended them YEARS earlier in a parking lot after a meeting. While I don’t want to appear insensitive to genuine hurts, having had many at the hands of leadership myself, and recognizing the validity of when to employ Matt. 18:15-17, I still feel that in many cases, the best cure for much of what ails us it to just…let it go. Make a conscious act of releasing it. Determine to forget about it, and no longer devote precious energy re-playing it over and over again in our minds. To turn it over to the Holy Spirit and let Him work a healing in our hearts. Just my opinion, YMMV.
When I was a student at PBC, during the last chapel of the year the staff would encourage us students to go around and personally ask forgiveness, or confront someone, as the case might have been, in order to get everything out on the table and forgive one another. I, personally, had always just tried to let offenses against me slide, but there were so many people mad at me, that I remember thinking it would probably be easier of I would just stand up on one of the seats, cup my hands to my mouth, and shout, “For the many of you I’ve offended this semester, and who are chomping at the bit for a piece of me, the line forms here. Your complaints will be listened to on a first come, first served, basis.”
Paul warns against allowing an attitude similar to this to be cultivated within us:
3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.
5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,
7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions. (1 Tim. 1:3-6, NASB)
I think Paul recognized the danger of excess negativity, which is why he says the following:
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. (Phil. 4:8, NASB)
joebib
June 28th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Well, I wrote the post, not JP, so there’s really nothing contradictory. But yeah, people should probably just learn to “let go” of any hurt feelings.
For my part, I don’t blog because I have hurt feelings. I blog because every now and then I hear from “insiders” how angry the pastors are at this blog, and how much it hurts them. And then I laugh …and laugh …and laugh…