Showing posts with label forgiveness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forgiveness. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Just In Time for Mother's Day

First published May 15, 2009 in The Daily Sentinel.



Last week, an article about motherhood caught my attention. Maybe it’s because we just finished celebrating Mother’s Day last Sunday, maybe it’s because the article indicates that American society has radically changed its expectations of motherhood and fatherhood.

In figures released by the US National Center for Health Statistics, four of every 10 babies born in 2007 were born to single women. In babies born to moms between ages 20 and 24, the number of babies born out of wedlock increased to 6 of every 10. Sixty percent of babies born to a mom in her early 20s – more than half – are going home to households without the traditional dual-parents-united-in-marriage structure.

The article’s sociologists (and perhaps the writer of the article itself) seemed to be gushing over the finding. Here’s how the story concludes:

Some experts said the trend represents positive changes for some women – women are less likely to be shunned if they have children by themselves or to be forced to give their children up for adoption.

“We’ve seen a transformation of social norms," said Rosanna Hertz, a professor of sociology at Wellesley College. "Women can have children on their own and it’s not going to destroy your employment and it’s not going to mean that you’ll be made a pariah by the community.”

Until recently (say the last 30 years or so), the concept of the two-parent household – a mother and father married to one another with children born from that marriage – was commonly recognized as the best context in which children could be raised. Unfortunately, that best context was sometimes the façade behind which much ugliness was contained. Spousal abuse, incest, alcoholism and drug addiction were all kept out of view behind the two-parent family pretext of perfection.

As our society grew increasingly suspicious of institutionalism in all its forms (remember the saying, “never trust anyone over 40”?), the institution of marriage also began to falter. Divorce rates skyrocketed, and so by the late 1970s, a majority of children in America grow up in a home in which at least one parental figure was NOT the child’s natural parent.

With so many homes made up of divorced adults remarrying other divorced adults, our vocabulary changed. No longer called “broken” homes, such households became “blended families.” Today’s 20 and 30-year olds are the product of that change. Often miserable in their blended families, those kids vowed that they would not repeat their parent’s (and step-parent’s) mistakes. If marriage is so miserable, their logic goes, then let’s throw away marriage completely and just live together.

And so we are now in an era when parenting and marriage are no longer linked together. I know that there are many people – probably including that professor from Wellesley College – who consider this a good thing. Don’t count me as one of them. I think this is a very sad development in our society, and time will only tell what the results of it are in the long term.

Yes, the 1950ish ideal portrayed by “Leave it to Beaver” and “Ozzie and Harriet” are probably nostalgic wishful-thinking of a time that never really existed, but I am still convinced that the best context for child-rearing is a home in which a man and woman make a lifelong commitment to one another, and they bring children into the world from that commitment.

Other studies, which often don’t receive much publicity, have shown that the traditional marriage continues to be the most conducive environment for successfully raising children. For example, the majority of children whose parents do not get or stay married experience at least one year (often more) of poverty. Boys whose parents divorced or never married, are two to three times more likely to end up in jail as adults. Finally, children whose parents get and stay married are healthier and much less likely to suffer mental illness, including depression and teen suicide.

As a Christian, I see marriage as something more than just the best context for raising kids. I also see it as a reflection of God’s desire for us to be in a specific type of relationship with one another. In a way that I cannot adequately explain, marriage is God’s idea; and it somehow reflects the relationship between God and us. Several times in the Gospels, Jesus makes an analogy between God’s kingdom and the bride and groom. Jesus is the groom, and those who follow him are his bride. In the book of Revelation, the church is described as the bride of Christ, “beautifully adorned” in Rev. 21:2.

Genesis 2 is seen as the theological foundation for marriage when God announces, “It is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper for him. (Gen 2:18) And so God created woman out of the man, and “for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh.” (Gen 2:24).

My older daughter will turn 20 later this year. I pray that she does not join the statistical majority and choose to have a baby without first laying the foundation of Biblically oriented marriage. I want the best for her – God’s absolute best – and not what our society seems to have settled on as adequate or easier. If we want God’s absolute best, we must cooperate with God to make it happen. It takes work: dedication, commitment, patience, and especially forgiveness.

And the good news is this: even when we blow it, God can take our mistakes and turn them into a new best. So even if you ARE one of the six in ten, God won’t shun you. And neither will I. But carefully, prayerfully, consider what is best for you and your child for the long term. And if you are not already a parent, please carefully, prayerfully, consider your actions and attitudes before they lead you to parenthood.

Every home – even the traditional mother-father-married-for-life one – is a broken home. But God is here to fix them. Will you let Him fix yours?

Friday, January 25, 2008

What's a Pastor (or Congregation) to Do?

First published in The Daily Sentinel, Friday, January 25, 2008

Have you heard of Pastor Jason Burrick? Until last week, neither had I. Pastor Burrick doesn’t have the name recognition enjoyed by Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or Max Lucado. But that didn’t stop him from being featured in the Wall Street Journal.

For many people, the Wall Street Journal is all about business news: stocks, interest rates, mergers and layoffs. But did you know that the Journal also covers religion? These days, even religion can be about business – or maybe even business can be religious!

But back to Pastor Burrick. According to the Journal, he is pastor of a small Baptist church in rural western Michigan. And I mean small: twelve members when he arrived. But what makes his story remarkable enough for the Journal is what he did when one of those members showed up for worship one Sunday. He called 911. The member did not need an ambulance; the pastor needed a sheriff.

Actually, the need for a sheriff was quite questionable. The church member in question was 71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and faithfully donated 10% of her fixed pension to the church even though rising prices made that an increasingly difficult sacrifice. Mrs. Caskey was armed only with her well-worn Bible – and a critical tongue.

Mrs. Caskey and Pastor Burrick did not get along. They really did not seem to like one another very much. The pastor accused her of spreading a “spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. She claimed the pastor refused to follow the church’s charter for administrative decision-making and distribution of power. The charter called for a Board of Deacons; Pastor Burrick claimed the church was too small for a Board and needed centralization of authority under his leadership.

Since Mrs. Caskey refused to drop her end of the argument, the pastor sent a letter to the entire congregation that said Mrs. Caskey and two other individuals were guilty of gossip, slander and idolatry, and they should be shunned. Because Mrs. Caskey did not see the error of her ways and repent, the pastor also refused to write a letter of transfer to another church for Mrs. Caskey.

So on the day that Pastor Burrick called 911, he charged her with trespassing. She was put in handcuffs and taken to the county jail. The county prosecutor refused to press charges. A month later, she was back. She sat in the front pew as Pastor Burrick preached about “infidels in the pews,” according to witness reports in the Journal article. A state trooper eventually arrived and took her to jail again. The prosecutor still refused to press charges and told law enforcement to not bring her back unless she created a disturbance.

So now they are at a stand-off, and it has split the church. During Pastor Burrick’s tenure, the church had grown to more than 50 people in worship. About 25 left in protest over the Caskey matter. Those who stayed support the pastor and continue to shun Mrs. Caskey. The only relief to the stand-off is when Mrs. Caskey travels to Florida for the winter. She’s there now, but promised to be back in the spring.

As I read that story, I had several emotional responses. In one way, this is funny – a “little old lady” squaring off against the “big, bad pastor.” In another way, this is tragic – there is no demonstration of love, charity or forgiveness by anyone.

Church controversies aren’t just “out yonder.” They are right here in our midst. And what’s a pastor or congregation to do when there is open sinfulness (or closet sinfulness, for that matter)? The Bible has several passages for how to deal with unrepentant people. Matthew 18:15-17 has the most famous process, directly from Jesus:

“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

Jesus describes a four-step process: 1) talk one-on-one. If that doesn’t work, then 2) take a couple of church leaders with you as unbiased, reliable witnesses and try again. If that doesn’t work, then 3) bring the matter before the whole congregation. Finally, if all else fails, then 4) treat the person as if he (or she) no longer belongs. But about that last step, I have a question: how did Jesus act towards “pagans and tax collectors”? He acted without judgment, but with mercy. He LOVED them back into repentance! He didn’t ostracize, ignore, ridicule, or condemn!

The Wall Street Journal article doesn’t describe the process used by Pastor Burrick towards Mrs. Caskey. But even if he followed the process in Matthew 18, he goofed at step 4. And so did she.

Church discipline is a tough topic. Yes, we should encourage people to refrain from sinfulness. Pastors are expected to lead their congregations, following a high standard of ethics for themselves. Troubles occur whenever the pastor or the parishioner fails to live into Jesus’ ethic: “be perfect, for your Heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt 5:48) But Jesus also says to “forgive seventy-seven times” (that is, without limit!) in Matt 18:22.

I do not have an easy solution, and I don’t think God even offers us one. The only solution I know is extremely difficult: to become so much like Jesus Christ that I am no longer a problem. Obedience is not driven by fear of punishment, but rather by such an overwhelming willingness to follow Christ that disobedience becomes unthinkable! I’m not there yet, but I keep on trying!! And I urge you to pursue holiness, as well. That’s what pastors (and congregations) are to do!