Lord, Save Me From Myself

I finally got around to seeing a documentary that I've been meaning to see since it came out (Lord, Save Us From Your Followers. Dir. Dan Merchant. Perf. Dan Merchant, George Bush, Al Franken, Bono, Tony Campollo. Big Finish Media. 1998. Streaming.) Gotta love Netflix. TBN aired the movie in July of 2010.

I had originally watched a small part of the movie because there were some friends and ministries featured in it that I wanted to see. At the behest of my wife I watched it in its entirety. When it was over I immediately posted on Facebook that those associated with our ministry and that had access to the movie should consider it a mandate from their pastor to watch it as part of their spiritual formation.

Whether I was out of touch or was oblivious to some of the messages of the movie (or both) I was not prepared for or even anticipated the very diverse reactions that my posting received by those that had already seen the movie. So what did I do then? I took the time to watch it again the very next day because my opinions from the first viewing didn't line up with some of the negative feedback that my brief post was receiving.

The overarching theme of the movie was how people outside of conservative evangelical faith circles don't receive Christ's message of love because of how that message is typically presented by those inside the faith circle i.e. the church. The church is viewed as judgmental, unloving, angry and despite the label of Christian...not very Christlike. Those interviewed shared how in their experience the message of the church is not a message of love but it is a message of being right. In other words, the church doesn't care what others think and will only engage in a conversation if they are agreed with.

The primary reason for the negative reaction to the movie seemed to be that it felt like an indictment against church leaders like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and that it also dismissed the hard work of those those that are considered to be the elders of the church who have spent their lives fighting the good fight.

I went into my second viewing looking for these things and came away with the conclusion that there must be a certain level of defensiveness against the movie by the church because the title implies that the movie is anti-church. I found no personal attack against any church leaders or specific groups in this movie. The only personal attack that I spotted was by the narrator toward liberal pundit Bill Maher as “a loud mouthed, pot smoking, know-it-all” though in the same sentence he recanted his statement about the pot smoking as a jest. I couldn't find a statement that made any church leader look foolish or put into a bad light.

My intention is not to review the movie here though. My intention is for us to look at why something like this movie bothers us so much. Why does a movie like this bring such intense emotion to the surface? Understand that I'll speak mostly in generalities when I talk about the church or liberals or Christians. There are always exceptions but don't miss the points that I'm trying to make because you figure that you are one of the exceptions.

The first reason why we get so agitated by something like Lord, Save Us From Your Followers is that it may feel like or truly does embody what we consider to be evil. Anything that attacks our character, our faith, our agenda, our way of thinking and way of life is something not easily dismissed and something we convulse against. But because it confronts us, does that make it evil? Because it makes us ask questions or even causes us to go so far as to doubt the way we’ve done things is that the standard by which we toss something out? I hope not because if we aren’t constantly confronted by opposing viewpoints then how to we shape our own views?

It is true that confrontation produces feelings of anxiety, angst and a general feeling of uncertainty. It affects the peace that we feel. Those feelings are not a good indicator of whether or not God is in it somewhere. How do we get sharpened without adversity? Can we be comfortable with our belief of anything before it has stood the test of an opposing view? This isn’t true just for matters of faith but for any kind of belief. Theology is easy. The practical application of that theology is another matter all together. It is that wrestling match that sometimes produces the greatest advancements in our faith and worldview.

I am not interested in arguing with anybody about theology or politics and I bet that some of you aren't interested either. This might sound noble but it isn't for my part. I'm just not a very good debater. I do think we automatically raise our shields and hunker down when we think our views are being called into question and when our heads are down under cover then we fail to see the bigger picture or at the very least the opinions and views of others. I saw a bumper sticker today that summed up our defensiveness. It said “I respect your opinion...I just don't want to hear it.”

Another reason a movie like this might bother us is that we view the comments and statements as inflammatory. Let's pretend for a moment that they are. Is this always bad? The late Jerry Falwell had said a lot of inflammatory things over the course of his life. I think some were spirit-led and I think some were straight from his flesh. Pat Robertson, founder of CBN and host of their flagship program 700 Club continues to say things that are inflammatory and even absurd (Google “Pat Robertson Alzheimer's” for the firestorm he created by his bad theology last week). Both are/were considered great leaders but that doesn't mean we just take everything they say as truth and on the flip side just because they say something that seriously smacks of senility, it doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bath water. Either approach is just lazy.

Interestingly though, I observe that we generally can be very forgiving toward some of these well-known Evangelicals who have made some outrageous statements. A liberal on the other hand, we will automatically disregard any and all statements NOT based on their merit or lack of it but based upon whether or not we have already categorized them as a liberal (a synonym for ungodly in our Christian thesaurus). One thing is certain though-we don't get as riled up about a ridiculous Pat Robertson statement as we do about a less ridiculous statement or honest critique made by a liberal.

As a pastor I try to be inflammatory on a regular basis. I don't say inflammatory things (like “you must watch this movie”) for the sake of being inflammatory. I say inflammatory things in order to get the listener's attention and force them to constantly re-examine if they are part of a fat and lazy American church. Jesus was the epitome of inflammatory but carried with him the purpose of shaking up the spiritual climate in his day. This is how he rolled.

A third rationale for our inclination to resist this conversation is because the inherent feeling that by engaging in an examination of how we've done things is tantamount to a dismissal and invalidation of the work of our evangelical forefathers.

I honor the work of my forefathers. I honor the lives spent and poured out in the efforts to see Christ’s Kingdom expand. I hope that my life’s work will be looked at and appreciated someday and I can only dream of having a fraction of the impact and influence that those mentioned here have had. I can tell you right now though that the church would be destined to fail in its role if it doesn't change after I am gone.

Reform and change will always happen and it happens through Spirit-led confrontation. Is it our pride and fear that keeps us from looking at our need to change? Does simply having the conversation automatically come at the expense of those that have walked before us? What would have happened if the conversation was resisted from when Luther nailed his confrontation to the door of the Wittenberg Church? Certainly the reforms of Zwingli, Calvin and Knox were an indictment against the then current church culture but the church has proven to be resilient enough to survive a few stepped on toes. It goes with the territory of leadership.

One of the last reasons that I can think of for the anxiety that such confrontations produce is because it demands the hard work of reflection and introspection. It is ironic to me that I had more cause to be offended by the reasons for not liking the movie than those giving the reasons. I am a product of the church, given my life to the church and as a pastor have been responsible for the very things that have come out of it.

I am over qualified to be vexed by statements that call my work, philosophy and calling into question. But I'm not. I'm not put off because I want to be better than I am. Having my methods, actions and words examined makes me sharper, it keeps me honest. It forces me to constantly look inward.

I think what concerns me the most about our difficulty in having the conversations that we need to have is that the technology of our lives often derails the conversation. The ability to send a mass message has made it too easy to avoid the face to face conversations that we need to have. It is too easy to rant without having to see the damage of our words. I am disturbed that we flock to and follow so many voices of authority who are not under any authority themselves.

What if we stopped and took a breath the next time we have an opportunity to engage the views of somebody we don't agree with? Could it be that the very act of listening might create a bridge that didn't exist previously? Could we consider it an act of service to God to do what doesn't come easy. To not allow our pride or fear to circumvent the opportunity that God has so graciously given to us. An opportunity that is about cross-pollinating the church that he loves with the world that he loves.


How about you?  Do you have any thoughts on why you might not be receptive to a conversation with someone who doesn't see things like you do?  Tell me about it.