Once there were some Christians who formed a group to educate and encourage each other. One member of the group, we’ll call him “Clint”, would occasionally whack other group members with a wiffle bat. Nobody in the group specifically condoned Clint’s random wiffle battings but their sincere convictions were that Christian love demands tolerance. Clint required an extra measure of patience and understanding. Besides, nobody in the group was perfect.
One day, another member of the group, well call him “Jake”, told Clint that wiffle batting people is wrong. The other members of the group, knowing Clint was a fragile spirit requiring gentle treatment, formed a prayer circle to ask God for unity. Jake, while not opposed to prayer in any circumstance, suggested that it would be appropriate for the other group members to join him in urging Clint to stop clobbering people.
Jake’s expressed sentiments were off-topic so the prayer circle was disbanded.
Thinking the distraction had been removed, the other members of the group formed another prayer circle for the explicit purpose of being vague. Clint was not to be mentioned by name because he had threatened to kill himself and highlighting his flaws could send him over the edge. Prayers were to be encouraging, uplifting, humble, and most importantly: non-specific.
But before every eye closed and every head bowed, Jake forced himself into the new prayer circle and complained about the previous prayer circle being disbanded. He contended that, along with fervent prayer, a conversation was needed to deal with Clint’s wiffle batting behavior. Christians should be able to talk openly with each other and allow the Spirit of God to work within…
Jake refused to follow the rules so the prayer circle was disbanded.
So, Jake went to stand in a corner. Soon, Clint came over and whacked him with a wiffle bat. The rest of the group didn’t notice because they were busy mourning the presence of a spirit of divisiveness. Harmony was disrupted and it made everyone sad. People quoted scripture and reminded each other that they were “better than this”.
Jake got a phone call from one group member who reminded him that anyone who forms a prayer circle has the right to disband it for any reason they see fit. Jake responded that while that was true, censoring prayers is a dubious theological practice.
Jake’s tone was sarcastic so his point of view was summarily dismissed. His criticisms had deeply hurt many people. He was driving wedges into the group. He needed to check his heart, humble himself, and ask those he had wounded to forgive him.
Meanwhile, Clint took his bat and left the group on account of the abuse he had received. He even published a video to let the world know the details of his mistreatment. Various members of the group pleaded with him to stay. They told him that they loved him. It was breaking their hearts to see him so upset.
Finally, Jake apologized for hurting everyone’s feelings. He did so privately because Christians believe that public conversations are sinful. Rather than talk openly in public and benefit from the wisdom of many people, Christians insist on privacy when airing grievances. Publicly, Christians talk in obscure metaphors. They ask God to move in mysterious, unspecified ways to “bring us together” and “make us one”. They form groups to educate and encourage each other that ultimately do neither. They scold Jake for mentioning that.
My story is fiction because Jake is not allowed to publicly express his feelings, thoughts, and experiences.
22 Responses
In all seriousness, I think a self-defense class is wasted in this culture. Maybe I should be teaching my daughters to cry.
That works better.
🤔😟
Why defend yourself when you can get men in the church to do it instead? The only thing those men are going to judge is whether you’re hurting… They don’t care WHY you’re hurting. So empowering women is a disadvantage, because that will cause them to be judged as arrogant or aggressive… It’s better for them to learn to cower and call for help.
An effective class would teach girls to wound themselves and then go tell a church leader about it. But I cannot, in good conscience, teach that one. 🙁
Jake has perfected the art of building straw men.
Please explain.
Atheists always say exactly what they mean
LOL
“…censoring prayers is a dubious theological practice.” Who could possibly disagree with that, right? Certainly not Jake’s friend. Jake’s friend told me, via a private message, that his conversation with Jake had nothing to do with “disbanding a prayer circle.” That’s the straw man.
A straw man misrepresents another person’s argument for the purpose of dismantling it. We agree that prayers should not be censored. 🙂
This is why Jake, Clint, Jake’s friend, Clint’s friends, and all other interested parties should be in conversation TOGETHER. Private messages to discuss Jake should include Jake. Otherwise they are gossip.
“Jake’s friend told me, via a private message…” That was a little *inside joke* and I assumed you’d be astute enough to catch that. In reality I am Jake’s friend and the conversation I’ve been having about Jake for the past three days have been with myself. Is it still “gossip” if I don’t include Jake in that conversation that I’ve been having with myself about him? I am also quite confident that Jake has been having discussions about me with his daughter and son-in-law (conversations in which I am not included). Is that, by your own definition, considered “gossip”? Why am I reticent to include Jake, someone I have referred to as my “best friend” to others, in this conversation I’m currently having with myself? Mostly because Jake sent me an angry email that said, “I want to never speak with you again” and concluded it with “I have no idea how we can ‘move on’ from this point.”
“A straw man misrepresents another person’s argument for the purpose of dismantling it. We agree that prayers should not be censored.” Of course we do. But Jake didn’t misrepresent my “argument” for the purpose of dismantling it. Jake misrepresented the entire conversation we had with each other. I never once “reminded him that anyone who forms a prayer circle has the right to disband it for any reason they see fit.” To suggest that the conversation was even about a “prayer circle” is to unfairly misrepresent the conversation. The conversation was not about a “prayer circle”. It had nothing to do with disbanding a prayer circle. And it certainly wasn’t about “censoring prayers”. Just exactly who is the one guilty of “gossip” here?
You’re right. I apologize for hurting your feelings. It was not my intention to do that. I am often wrong when I’m emotional. It’s difficult to admit my attempts to be right cause others to suffer. I pray for God’s help overcoming my pride.
And this is why I take screenshots…
Inevitably, people always remember different things about a conversation. The only way to revisit what was actually said is with physical proof.
(That proof is lost when the conversations are happening off-record–let alone when they’re deleted.)
And–YES–in order to avoid being guilty of gossip, we have attempted to put our conversations out publicly. But we’re damned if we do and if we don’t.
That kind of dysfunction is because the vast majority of Christians worship at the altar of fear and control, and shame is the commodity they use to try to accumulate power. I address this truth on my blog frequently. Few people listen to me, including Jake, but I do happen to have some special insights into the cause of this particular kind of chaos.
I totally agree. 🙂 You’re exactly right about the vast majority of Christians. Actually, the vast majority of HUMANS. 🙂 But I think you agree about that, too.
Spill your guts and “nice” be hanged!!!
I don’t do “nice”.
I’m kind.
Big difference.
Am I correct in saying Clint is Bob?
I’m not sure what we’re allowed to confirm or deny publicly. We’ll have to wait until a Peacemaker can come and render judgment. 🙂
Ah, just as I feared.
🙂
In all seriousness, though, being covert and unclear drives my crazy! I wish Christians could just talk openly… We need to have an honest look at why we REALLY prefer “private” (secret) conversations and hypotheticals. I think there’s pride involved.
But, in order to have the conversation, we have to be ALLOWED to have the conversation. (Sigh)
I think the only reason Christians talk in hypotheticals is because they are ashamed of what they’re saying and don’t want to be tied to it.
Yeah, I think I can agree with that.
But the question is, WHY are they ashamed? Are they feeling guilty because what they’re saying isn’t true or beneficial to godly speech? Or are they afraid of BEING shamed by others who simply disagree or don’t understand?
I think all the talk about wanting to be authentic and “real” comes from a genuine place. (Just like the talk about being imperfect and having flaws comes from a genuine place.)
But when it comes to diving in and discussing DETAILS, people often don’t react well. Anyone who wants to be “real” needs to be prepared for the lecture that goes, “You can’t say that here, right now, in that tone…”
I see a podcast in the works.
Americans have perfected the art of talking endlessly about “prayer” and the value of “conversation” while never actually allowing it.
The number one issue threatening all of us is censorship and controlling the dialog. If we could all be HONEST without having our voice censored, deleted, and shamed, we could tackle some of these uncomfortable situations like being whacked with wiffle balls and not being able to defend ourselves.
Bravo! Well said, The Peaches! Life in churches would be wonderfully different.
“… for the explicit purpose of being vague..” made me laugh, makes me sad because this is so freaking true.
Hang in there, Jake!