The Pretty Church

Gina was a survivor of domestic violence, emerging from the effects of an abusive first husband and rebuilding her life with Steve, her current husband. Never content merely to survive, Gina wanted to help others going through the kind of experience she had. She formed a foundation dedicated to the prevention and remedy of domestic violence and its effects. She and Steve also presented the concept to the senior pastor of their church as a ministry opportunity. The pastor’s refusal even to consider the possibility was a slap in the face as painful as the injuries of her first marriage.

Gina and Steve were members of what we'd commonly call a "mega-church." Personally, I’d call it a "pretty church."  The Pretty Church often has limited value for the currently suffering, other than as a beacon in the distance to provide inspiration to those who can see it.

Characteristics of The Pretty Church include attention to its preservation and growth, its distancing from what it teaches, its size, its attention to public and internal image, and its tiered structure of administration and congregation. These are all interrelated, but they each have their distinguishing elements.

PREACHING AND PRAXIS

This is the church-speak equivalent of practicing what you preach. In the eyes of the outside observer, The Pretty Church’s tendency to preach one thing and practice another is almost a given. The church teaches a lot that is NOT pretty, so The Pretty Church distances itself from its teachings. Let me give two quick modern-day examples, using Luke 7. In the narrative Jesus is dining with religious high-rollers when an unacceptable woman breaks into the banquet hall. She runs to Jesus and weeps all over his feet and wipes them with her hair, much to the disgust of the other guests. The Pretty Church’s congregation, under its collective breath, is cheering “Way to go, Jesus” as he rebukes the indignant guests. But neither the preacher nor the congregation will face the fact that Jesus, after saying “Your sins are forgiven” doesn’t say “go and sin no more.” She’s likely captive in white slavery, and Jesus knows it will be some time before she can escape her oppressor.

My first modern example is at the million-dollar retirement party of The Pretty Church’s senior pastor. Present are business, political, and other church leaders. In the corner is an insignificant clergyman from a small church across town, invited because he and the pastor were once friends. As the dignitaries eat and speak, suddenly a woman of the street breaks in and rushes to the token clergyman. As she collapses sobbing into the man’s arms, he takes her out of the banquet hall as the dignitaries curse the two of them. The bouncers are close behind, making sure of a quick return to order. The clergyman comforts the woman, reassuring her that he’s working on her escape from the street life. But he cautiously reminds her that some of her pimp’s clients are in the banquet hall, and that her pimp uses real bullets.

My second modern example is The Pretty Church’s Wednesday evening service. Virginia Dale, the guest speaker, wows them with tales of her pre-conversion life as an exotic dancer with Sally Rand and her past exploits with such notables as Jack Ruby. In celebration for the return of the prodigal, The Pretty Church kills the fatted calf. But then the congregation sees Heather Lou sitting in the audience, sobbing uncontrollably as she’s desperately seeking help to escape from the gentlemen’s club and its stranglehold. And the congregation kills not the fatted calf, but Heather Lou.

SIZE OF THE SHIP AND IMAGE-MANAGEMENT

The larger church typically has a large operating budget with reserves and an endowment to weather the storms of economic uncertainty. It also has the ability to sponsor numerous programs for member and guest participation, as well as a physical plant and staff to oversee such indirect outreach programs as Operation Head Start and Family Gateway.

But the larger church, in order to sustain the large operating budget, must give major attention to its public image. For example, when Jerry Falwell commented about the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, world media outlets had a field day and damage control became a multi-year project. This leads to a paranoia that paralyzes The Pretty Church and makes them hesitant to take on any sort of controversy.

In addition to its public image, The Pretty Church must continually attract and hold large and financially strong members. It must compete effectively with other mega-churches and with the smaller ones. This requires attention to internal eye-appeal as well. The auditorium must be made beautiful with the arrangement of the performers' stage, the baptistery, the choir section, and the musicians. It must be purged of elements that would lead to controversy. Any depictions of social outreach, God\'s love for the poor, and the seedy people that Jesus associated with, are not allowed. If a cross is present at all in the auditorium, it tends to be shiny metal or well-manicured wood. Any thought of showing Jesus on the cross is quickly done away with.

US AND THEM

The worship structure is in an auditorium resembling a concert hall, with paid and volunteer musicians and a preacher who delivers a 45- to 60-minute message. The congregation's part is to sing with the musicians, listen to the sermon, and make responses when prompted. This hierarchical worship format tends to be the model of church administration as well. The leaders tend to become isolated, surrounding themselves with a small number of trusted advisers who insulate them from the needs and interests of their members.

The sermons speak of God's love for the poor, but in general and to protect its income stream Jesus' words about woes to the rich are severely qualified with a version of "I don't mean you who earned your fair wages." All words of welcome that Jesus extended tend to be followed by having the less acceptable worshipers do the equivalent of sitting in the back of the bus. In effect, the worship space must be "pretty." Any reference to Jesus' death on the cross, or any mention of blood, must remain abstract; it's OK to speak about the fact of Jesus' suffering, but it's never acceptable to speak of the forensics of death by crucifixion. References to "taking up your cross" are metaphorical, in the form of dealing with obnoxious co-workers. The fear is that members will jump ship if they are ever confronted with the true cost of their salvation, or with the true meaning of the Great Commission to go into all the world (Matthew 28:19-20).

This sentiment spills over to the church's programs. Programs tend to include the socially accepted ones, such as hospital visitation, divorce and addiction recovery, travel, book discussions, international mission support, and Bible studies.

Occasionally, depending on the demographics, the church may also include a program of re-entry into society following a prison sentence -- as long as the ex-offender's crimes fit within acceptable limits. But certain programs tend to be absolutely off limits, especially anything that ministers to victims of crime and violence. This is a continuation of keeping the church "pretty." Domestic violence is a taboo topic inside as well as outside the church, so Gina and Steve were definitely behind the curve. A rape victim, or someone disfigured by violent crime, suddenly puts a face onto the things comfortably kept on the other side of a wall. Occasionally such a face can be a guest speaker, with overhead slides and handouts, and the speaker then takes food and money over the wall to the recipients. A good time is had by all, and nobody has to take hand-wipes to photo-ops.

THE DEFENSE

Because of the need to be "pretty," the experts have constructed an eloquent defense of their practices.

• If we're pretty, we attract a lot of resources (oops, members and checkbooks) and can reach out with greater effectiveness to glorify God.
• If we're pretty, we can appeal to a wider range of worshipers at all levels of their Christian maturity. Substantive theology can be pursued in Sunday schools and Bible studies.
• Icons in our auditorium? Stained-glass depictions of Jesus eating with prostitutes and tax collectors? Heaven forbid that we would put these idols into the same place where we worship God in Spirit and Truth!
• A crucifix in our auditorium? This is crucifying Christ again!

This combined attitude borders on hypocrisy, and it is what Gina and Steve ran up against. It flies in the face of the Great Commission, and it sanitizes religion to remove all of the call in Matthew 25.

THE REMEDY

Fixing the problem is simple in theory, and it can be seen in some very happy exceptions. One of these is The Rock Church in San Diego. Under its Senior Pastor, Miles McPherson, The Rock Church runs several programs that meet people where they are, without judgment. Two such programs are "JC’s Girls," an exit program for women who honestly want to stop dancing in gentlemen’s clubs, and "Luv 'em Up," a ministry to those of different mental ability.

For resource, here are a few links provided by friends who reviewed the draft of this article.
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL8218313M/Showtime!_Worship_in_the_Age_of_Show_Business which tackles primarily the church as more eye candy than "heart candy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finley_Peter_Dunne who is credited with the quote "Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable."
http://urban.pcpc.orghttp://urban.pcpc.org, a mega-church that has addressed this matter creatively. Instead of creating a ministry to "the least of these," they actively support several Christian ministries in the area. They have an urban ministries staff pastor to oversee this work and invite members to volunteer. It’s not a direct involvement, but this is a start.
http://www.theraveproject.org, which addresses these complex issues from a Christian perspective was born out of rejections and disappointments.

I received indirect references to others, but these are samples. It’s heartwarming to know that these do exist, and that we’re not pioneering the concept. We have a long way to go, but a start has been made out there. Hopefully, in your own journey you will accumulate some resources and share them as well.

We've all heard it said, "If the job of the captain was to protect the safety of the ship, he'd never leave port." I once heard this quote in a sermon, paradoxically by a senior pastor who would never do anything to put his physical plant at risk.

Contrast this to the fictional Prime Directive of the "Star Trek" series. We can learn a lot when a church puts this idea into practice. When a church places God's priorities over the protection of its assets and income, when the endowment principal is spent on outreach to the hurting of the world, that church finds itself depending on the faith it promotes among its membership. It must seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, and trust the Heavenly Father to provide for its own needs.

What a concept!

Grace and Peace,
Charles+

The Curs(e) of Personal and Political Credit

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”
Harry S Truman

“When will we get the sorting utility manual?” I asked of the group manager.

“Charles, we don’t have a sort utility manual because we are not going to sort our data. You need to use the indexing capabilities of our new database.”

Oh, how I wish he hadn’t sent the e-mail to the entire company. It was mildly embarrassing to me, but that was nothing compared to the embarrassment he brought onto himself. Someone who had his ear told him that I’d been working with huge volumes of data, so large that the database was incapable of handling even a small percentage would drag the database to its knees.

Two weeks later one of the project leaders dropped the sort utility manual onto my desk. I’m not proud of my next comment, asking “Whose idea did it have to become before it was acceptable?”

Computer programmers and engineers tend to be a non-conventional breed of creature in the workplace. These people tend to come up with phenomenal ideas on a daily basis, but this is coupled with weak resignation that hardly anything will be accepted when it comes from them. In geek-speak it goes like this:
The acceptability of an idea depends on its source far more than its content.

Several years ago I sent this concept to Scott Adams, creator of the "Dilbert" comic strip. He has used the idea on occasion, though I may have been only one of many who sent it to him.

Translated into real-world language, the principle works like this.

• On Monday Bob, a geek, will come up with an idea.
  Jim, Bob’s low-level manager, dismisses the idea out of hand. Management would never buy it. The idea is too much trouble to implement. It’s too expensive. It takes too long to recover the cost of putting the idea in place. It doesn’t fit with the philosophy of the company.
• On Tuesday Harold, the department head, calls a meeting of low-level managers and solicits ideas. Jim presents Bob’s idea, claiming credit for coming up with it, and Harold gives Bob the approval to put the idea in place.
• On Thursday Malcolm, the division vice president, calls a meeting of department heads and asks for status reports. Harold describes the idea he came up with, and the progress his department is already making in its implementation.
• On Friday Keith, the CEO, holds a press conference to report the state of the company and its innovative accomplishments. Keith describes his (actually, Bob's) idea, already in place for several days, and the way his hard work and creativity is paying off.
• The following Monday, as the process gets repeated, Malcolm passes Keith in the hallway. Keith smiles at Malcolm. Malcolm, now having a nice day because the CEO smiled at him, calls Harold into his office and compliments him on last week’s superb idea. Harold, courteously thanking Malcolm, leaves and visits Jim in the engineering area. Another attaboy goes to Jim, and Harold feels he has expressed adequate appreciation to Jim. Jim then goes to Bob and demands new suggestions for company improvement. As Bob smiles and promises to think of something, he sees his idea going in full force and is happy. He also has mild contempt for Jim, Harold, Malcolm, and Keith.

Because Jim took credit for Bob’s idea, and Harold took credit for Jim’s stolen idea, and Malcolm took credit for Harold’s stolen goods, and Keith made the buck stop with him, they’re all credit hounds. So in calling them “curs” my title is not a misprint.

Bob continues at the company for several years, content to see the results of his ideas making his workplace better. Just before he is laid off, however, Bob puts one final idea in place. He goes to the tropical fish store, purchases a fishbowl, and sets it onto the secretary’s desk.

Whenever Bob or any of the other geeks come up with an idea, they write it onto a piece of paper and put it into the fishbowl. Whenever a department head or a low-level manager needs a smile from a superior, it is a simple matter of pulling out a slip of paper from the fishbowl and implementing the idea written on it.

The geeks couldn’t care less. It’s affirmation enough to see the idea work. That’s their job satisfaction. They don’t have to compete; they don’t have to stab others in the back; they don’t have to get credit for their ideas. They just work until someone really smart takes the company’s reins and decides the geeks are expendable, at which time the techies are laid off and the smart managers empty the fishbowl prior to running the company into the ground.

I remember in 1968 when Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for President of the United States. The nation was mired in a conflict in Southeast Asia, among other things. I remember Wallace making a campaign speech, in which he addressed several things he planned to do for the nation if elected. After each point, especially that of ending the Viet Nam conflict, he would say “. . . and I could care less who gets the credit for it!” (Yes, of course he meant that he “could NOT care less.” But this is evolution of the English language, not illiteracy on the governor’s part.) Whatever else I thought of Governor Wallace, those words of his stuck with me ever since.

So what shall be our commitment as we address the social and political issues of our day?

Charles+

----------
The world is too full of examples like these. Allow me to share one more, as a footnote.

One night I rode in the police helicopter over Washington, DC. I noticed, looking down at a crime scene, that the tops of the police vehicles had luminous numbers for ID. Later I asked the helicopter pilot if this helps him to identify the units, and he said, "Funny you should mention that." Then he told me this story.

"A couple of years ago I suggested to the chief that the tops of the cars ought to have their IDs so that the helicopter pilot could call out on the bullhorn when a suspect runs past one of them. The chief said it was a lousy idea, too expensive and impractical. Then a few weeks later the Commissioner made a public statement about putting IDs on the tops of the cars. It was amazing what a great idea the chief thought it was!"

The O-Ring Memo

Some 50 days into what’s becoming known as “The Gulf Oil Spill” we hear of safety compromises by all of those involved in the original drilling project. According to one source, BP has been accused of some 740 safety violations in 2009 and 2010, compared to one by Exxon Mobil and 8 by Shell Oil. It’s hard to be objective when such loss of life and livelihood come at the result of negligence. It’s even harder to be objective in the face of expected increases in government regulations, which will translate to higher prices for motor fuels and everything in the economy that gets shipped.


It is useless to cast blame until we’ve made it through the crisis. Nonetheless, I’m dismayed that once again we turned our backs on “the O-Ring Memo,” a tool that could have prevented most if not all of our current crisis.  


The “O-Ring Memo” should have kept the space shuttle Challenger from exploding seventy-four seconds into its launch and killing its seven occupants on January 28, 1986. Roger Boisjoly, an engineer for Morton Thiokol, Inc., in July of 1985 had written a confidential memo to his company’s engineering vice president “… to insure that management is fully aware of the seriousness of the current O-ring erosion problem...” [from M.M. Jennings, Case Studies in Business Ethics, 2nd ed. (West Publishing, 1996)]. The day before the accident Boisjoly and another Thiokol engineer unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the launch. Although NASA and Thiokol knew that the launch-time temperature was ten degrees below the accepted safe minimum, the engineers were considered insignificant by management standards. 
Partly due to Boisjoly’s memo, litigation attorneys all over the nation rejoiced. 


The “O-Ring Memo” should have kept a downtown Minneapolis bridge from collapsing and killing 13 people when it collapsed August 1, 2007. At least one NTSB investigator referred to “under-designed” gusset plates. Within a year the “O-Ring Memo” surfaced, written during the design process by some insignificant engineer at URS Corp., the contractor that built (or warranted) the bridge. The memo criticized the gusset plate design, and in the legal community a good time was had by all. 


While engineers are at the bottom rung of any ladder when it comes to credibility, the cost of ignoring them can sometimes never be recovered. “Nerds” make good comedy fodder with their pocket protectors and funny ways of talking. The late Walter Cronkite spoke of NASA’s successful launches as “great scientific achievements” and the unsuccessful ones as “engineering failures.” 


But the engineer has counterparts when it comes to society’s disregard. Let’s notice who else gets short shrift when it comes to credibility. 


The abused child is expelled from school for accusing her father, a respected member of his church or community. 

The seminary student remains silent when molested by a clergyman on the short list to be elected bishop. 


The wife’s protest is dismissed because her husband is popular in the business community and a contributor to numerous charities. 


Among victims of abuse the equivalent of the “O-Ring Memo” is the “Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit.” The affidavit contains critical information to help victims document their experiences and create a permanent legal record. Its purpose is to insure that instances of abuse are recorded for future use in the legal system. This relatively new tool has already changed some lives, and it is on its way to saving countless others. 


The “Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit,” just as the “O-Ring Memo,” has far-reaching implications and is relatively simple to prepare. As far down on the food chain as an engineer sits, a small action can have a monumental effect. And an person, no matter how insignificant the abuser has made her feel, also has the power to perform a small action with an effect just as monumental. 


Grace and Peace,
Charles+



Editor's note:  Just as our cemeteries are filling because of the oversight of something so simple as an "O-Ring" they are filling even faster because of the effects of domestic violence.  The Evidentiary Abuse Affidavit is something that has been compared to a paper clip, something so simple that has far reaching capabilities to enhance every day life.