Leading a Divided Church
My posting yesterday about the exit of Brad Braxton from the pulpit of the Riverside Church made use of Randy Balmer's commentary about the role a small group of disgruntled members made to oppose his ministry -- using money (salary) as the rallying cry of their opposition. The comments here focused on the issue of money -- should a pastor take such a large salary? That is an interesting discussion, but it's not the point I was trying to make. So, I want to start a new today, with a follow up discussion. That is, how does a pastor lead a congregation forward that is internally divided.
In looking at some of the supporting conversations online I discovered an article from the NT Times written at the time that Braxton was called in September (he was there about 7 months not 2 as I originally posted). Apparently there was much discussion the day of the vote, pro and con. Although it appears that he was sustained by an overwhelming vote, there are deep rifts in this church, some of which are generational and others cultural.
Note from a September 14, 2008 article:
The divisions present in this church go back well into the ministry of James Forbes, the first African American pastor of the Riverside Church. Forbes was seen as bringing too much of the evangelical and the African-American cultural context into the church -- and the membership changed from majority white to majority black. There are charges that Braxton, whose own theology is deeply rooted in black liberation theology, was bringing in an Afrocentric faith, displacing the older Euro-centric worship style. It was becoming, you might say, more emotional and less intellectual -- not that Braxton isn't an intellectual! It's a question of style.
So, the question is -- how does one lead a congregation that is diverse in its expectations and needs. An organ or not an organ? Contemporary (whatever that means) or traditional? Intellectually challenging or spiritually nurturing? Practical or spiritual? Formal or informal? A strong pastor or a more laid back and passive one?
John D. Rockefeller built Riverside Church for Harry Emerson Fosdick -- at about the same time that Central Woodward Christian Church was built with another prominent liberal preacher in mind -- Edgar Dewitt Jones. Riverside and CWCC gave a prominent place for two of America's most prominent liberal preachers to proclaim their message. But the times have changed, the world has changed, and the churches have changed. Of course, not everyone is happy.
I don't think my congregation is in the same place as Riverside, but it was. Riverside's path forward will be difficult. So, let's not get caught up in the debate about money, because there are other issues in the mix as well!
In looking at some of the supporting conversations online I discovered an article from the NT Times written at the time that Braxton was called in September (he was there about 7 months not 2 as I originally posted). Apparently there was much discussion the day of the vote, pro and con. Although it appears that he was sustained by an overwhelming vote, there are deep rifts in this church, some of which are generational and others cultural.
Note from a September 14, 2008 article:
Tensions have been part of the Riverside Church community for more than a decade. Longtime members attribute some of the situation to the changing racial makeup of the 2,700-member congregation, which was once about 60 percent white and 40 percent black, and now is roughly the reverse. Some of the tensions are blamed on generational differences — an older, white membership with emotional roots in the civil rights era, and a younger contingent of middle-class black members who bring a less politicized set of religious beliefs to Sunday services.“Look, there are always conflicts in any congregation,” said Richard Allen, 48. “Sometimes you want to be intellectually challenged in church, sure. And sometimes you want to hear some gospel.”
Parish members milled around after the vote in the vast space of the church, bathed in the cool bluish light filtered through acres of stained-glass windows, either embracing in celebration or pondering their options.
The divisions present in this church go back well into the ministry of James Forbes, the first African American pastor of the Riverside Church. Forbes was seen as bringing too much of the evangelical and the African-American cultural context into the church -- and the membership changed from majority white to majority black. There are charges that Braxton, whose own theology is deeply rooted in black liberation theology, was bringing in an Afrocentric faith, displacing the older Euro-centric worship style. It was becoming, you might say, more emotional and less intellectual -- not that Braxton isn't an intellectual! It's a question of style.
So, the question is -- how does one lead a congregation that is diverse in its expectations and needs. An organ or not an organ? Contemporary (whatever that means) or traditional? Intellectually challenging or spiritually nurturing? Practical or spiritual? Formal or informal? A strong pastor or a more laid back and passive one?
John D. Rockefeller built Riverside Church for Harry Emerson Fosdick -- at about the same time that Central Woodward Christian Church was built with another prominent liberal preacher in mind -- Edgar Dewitt Jones. Riverside and CWCC gave a prominent place for two of America's most prominent liberal preachers to proclaim their message. But the times have changed, the world has changed, and the churches have changed. Of course, not everyone is happy.
I don't think my congregation is in the same place as Riverside, but it was. Riverside's path forward will be difficult. So, let's not get caught up in the debate about money, because there are other issues in the mix as well!
Comments
My experience (and I have some) teaches me that members of a Christian community need to be supple enough in their ego requirements to listen to each other and to respond directly to the needs of potential antagonists when and where they arise.
Inflexible positions, ignoring complaints, avoiding irritants (my personal nemesis - I always think they will take care of themselves!?!), triangulating within the administration or in the pews, guerrilla campaigns to effect change or prevent change, all contribute to ultimate disaster. Openness and transparency must prevail.
To avoid catastrophe, I think there first needs to be an uncompromising commitment on everyone's part to reconciliation: we can only survive if we embrace our communal identity as a continually reconciling unity - everyone has to agree that a "my way or the highway" mentality on either side is the kiss of death for the community.
And when anyone hears such an attitude expressed, it is each member's obligation to respond, personally, and as a representative of the (comm)unity, with a quiet but clear call for reconciliation. This idea needs to define the congregation and its pastor. We are all called to be peacemakers and we need to be reminded continually.
Of course, there are some differences, whether on issues or between personalities, which may be irreconcilable. If the members can live with such differences being unresolved and without seething disquiet, then they need to set aside their differences for the benefit of the community and openly commit to working together, differences notwithstanding.
If they cannot go forward together arm in arm, then the opponents each need to consider whose departure (and how effectuated) will contribute most to the future health of the congregation - perhaps both must leave. And the departure needs to happen with a joint call from both sides for healing and reconciliation to be embraced in the wake of the departure.
If it only were so simple!
Of course it is never so neat. Personalities, and agendas, and words, wreak havoc. And it seems to me that it is the words, once spoken, which cannot be retracted, that do the most damage - and not just to each other, but there is so much collateral damage!
And I have to say that a curse, or a call for pruning cannot be appropriate. Even if the pruning must occur or the curse is unavoidable. "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you...."
So we need to commit to continual work on reconciliation and we need to be careful with our words, understanding that the words we use can be a sword or a salve. And wounds take so long to heal.
John
As was said in the comments on the earlier post, there is obviously more going on here than just finances and it is unfortunate that the financial issues mask the other, more important ones even if they do reflect them to one degree or other.
It clearly is a battle over the future direction for the congregation as it continues to move from a white church that had a significant of members from other racial groups to something else, whether a truly multi-cultural church or an African American church that has a significant number of white members... The change has been going on for some time but there is a significant part of the congregation that is not on board.
As a congregation, they must make that decision and that process is the central task for them over the coming years. All sides must feel as if they have been part of the discussion and the table must be completely and absolutely transparent.
So here's the other question... with such significant differences, how was a church of that size able to maintain its membership through what must have been simmering for years? Were the old guard waiting for Forbes to retire so they could reassert their power? Or was his personality and personal commitments enough to hold things together over the conflict? Or was Forbes' call an expression of that old line liberalism which the old guard had supported at least in the beginning, only to regret changes in the congregation that came as a result? thus their power play? And how much of this really was about the process itself? If the various factions had felt that they were part of the process, would this have been avoided?
It seems as if the people who were responsible for the call of Brad Braxton were those who were supportive of/came after Forbes' tenure began.
Forbes' background was Pentecostal, so it was interesting to see him follow in the footsteps of a more white social gospel string of pastors.
John is right that words spoken can be difficult to retract, and the tensions that emerged in earlier days can spill over long after the "cause" is no longer present.
So, what do I expect to see happen. I expect to see a more establishment white pastor called. What that will mean, I don't know. Obviously people weren't listening to each other, but by the time it came to vote it was too late, the die was cast, and the tenure was undermined.