Misguided Expectations Lead to Unhappy People

In my continuing journey today through my desk drawers as we prepare for our upcoming move, I was still reading through some items we had managed to collect over these past few years. I ran across an article by George Will that had been sent to me in 2006, and had been published in the "Daily Press" newspaper in Hampton in February of that year and, no doubt, in many other markets as well. He was talking about polls that are designed to determine who the happiest people are. Most of the findings did not surprise me. I was well-acquainted with the data. Religious people are, on the whole, happier than non-religious. Married people are, as a rule, happier than single. Conservatives usually turn out to be happier than liberals. The question that comes to mind, of course, is why are certain groups generally happier than others. Will had an interesting answer to that question, and I think he got it right. He essentially said that those groups of people are happier who have a healthy kind of pessimism about the human race. Let me give my own adapted and modified and slightly expanded version of why I think some people are happier than others. I think back to what Scott Peck said in the opening sentence of his book, "The Road Less Traveled." "Life is difficult." As soon as we understand that, it makes things a lot easier to bear. The reason some people are happier than others is often because their expectations are very different from those of other people. If you really believe that people are inherently and basically good, you're going to be disappointed. As a biblical Christian, I already know that people are inherently evil. The doctrine of original sin, of total depravity, is alive and well. This does not make me a cynic, since my ultimate faith is in God and the assurance that all will work to His glory. But it does keep me from having unrealistic and false expectations about my fellow man. If you really believe that most of the answers to the serious problems confronting the nation and the world are going to be found through government, you are destined to be disappointed and disillusioned. Governments have proven time and time again that they are either incapable or unwilling to solve the most pressing problems facing humanity. If you really believe that pragmatism is always the best route, then you will always have a society which is superficial and materialistic. Pragmatism, as a driving force in society, will never rise to the heights of great causes and mighty principles. In short, the sectarian, the statist, and the utilitarian, will all be disappointed in the end. They cannot possibly be truly happy in any meaningful, permanent way. The Christian, on the other hand, has all the reason in the world to be truly happy. It is as the Bible says, that Jesus did not "commit himself unto them, because He knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for He knew what was in man." (John 2:24-25.) A proper understanding and appreciation for the true nature of man will go a long way toward making a person truly happy.

Family Ministry

This afternoon, Lydia and I were going through some things that I had managed to collect and save over the years, cleaning out files, rummaging through a desk drawer, throwing away some old articles. In the process, we ran across several items related to families and social breakdown in America. The contexts of these items were different and varied; but in several places, we read the same statistic--and it shocked me. It is fairly widely understood now that 35% of births in America today are illegitimate. Of course, the percentages are much higher in certain racial and economic groups; but such instances are increasing in all strata of American society. For a number of years, I have had it in the back of my mind to become more intentionally involved in family ministry. Children are increasingly coming into homes without fathers; marriages are becoming less stable; the stress of job and financial pressures is becoming more than many families can bear. Add to that the changing role of women, the constant discussions in the media and elsewhere regarding homosexuality, and some of the disturbing trends in education, and you have a recipe for the destruction of the American family as we know it. The church is largely to blame for much of thedissolution of families in America today. Mainline denominations have not given the clear guidance or upheld the conventional standards of the biblical family. Many of us who are ministers have abrogated our responsibilities in this area for fear of offending church members or seeming too old-fashioned or judgmental. The ministry to families does not have to be carried out in a condemning or unloving fashion. Where people have made serious mistakes, those mistakes need to be recognized; but the power and presence of God's love and grace also need to be strongly affirmed. ADults need to be encouraged to take their responsibilities seriously. The church can once again be the nurturing institution that Christ ordained it to be. I've dreamed of having a Family Ministry Center to help with family counseling, financial matters, and perhaps even job skills and other areas of family life. Whether that ever comes to fruition as part of my ministry, now or in later years, of course, remains to be seen. Of one thing I am certain, however: The church needs to be more involved in guarding the future of the traditional family unit, or the future of the institutional church itself will be in doubt.

On Calling a Pastor

It looks as though I am about to come to the end of the process of seeking a pastoral call. I will say more about that when everything becomes official. Apparently, most major denominations do a very conscientious and methodical job in helping pastors get relocated. I have commended the ladies in our PC(USA) Call Referral Service with whom I have spoken on many occasions; and our Internet tool, the Church Leadership Connection, is very effective in pointing pastors to opportunities and information. Still, there are aspects of the call process that trouble me. While I am writing this from the perspective of a PC(USA) pastor, I think many of my observations will apply to all of the main-line denominations and some of the smaller assemblies as well. Several months ago, I mentioned in earlier blog entries some of my concerns about the plight of rural and small churches. I believe that these churches need greater support and ahigher priority within our denomination. A certain percentage of our churches are always without a pastor. To some extent, this is inevitable, given the procedures necessary for a search process. But sometimes, this process seems to be unnecessarily lengthy. Branches of a corporation are not long without a branch manager; and it seems to me that the search and call process in many cases does undue harm to the ongoing ministry, especially of smaller churches. Of course, we do have interim pastors; and they go a long way toward addressing this problem in many cases. We also have commissioned lay pastors in the Presbyterian Church. I believe that in certain situations, these can be very helpful. On the other hand, I want the professionals who serve me to be fully trained. I want my lawyer to be a law school graduate, and my doctor to be a medical school graduate; so why shouldn't the pastor, even in a small church, be a fully trained seminary graduate? My main concerns are with the secrecy of the process. When a pastor believes that it is time to seek relocation, there is no vehicle to let the Session know about those feelings. Even in a troubled church, the pastor is reluctant to let the leadership know that rlocation is being sought. Churches sometimes lose members because people are unhappy with the pastor; but often, the pastor is just as unhappy with the church. If the congregation, or at least the Session, could have some way of knowing that the pastor has reached the conclusion that a change is needed and that he/she is seeking relocation, a lot of church strife could probably be avoided, and the pastor would not have to be so fearful of being asked to resign. What actually happens is that the pastor embarks on the relocation process, goes off on secret trips, claiming to be on vacation, while the church continues to experience unrest and turmoil! (I should know; I've had to do it a few times myself.) It's tremendously taxing emotionally, and frankly borders on being deceptive. I know that in some districts and conferences of the Methodist Church, steps are often taken to allow pastor and congregation to have a more open understanding about whether they desire to keep a certain relationship going--subject, of course, to the District Superintendent and the bishop. This seems to be a step in the right direction. And then, there's this practice of preaching in a "neutral" pulpit when the pastor nominating committee is nearing its decision on calling a particular person to a pastorate. The PNC goes off secretly to a neighboring church to hear the candidate preach to a congregation who is asked to allow this intrusion into its own routine. I've never understood why the candidate couldn't just preach to the congregation who will be asked to consider that candidate to be its next pastor. (That does happen, but not very often.) Usually, the calling congregation has to vote on a candidate sight unseen, sermon unheard. I know there are reasons for this practice; and some of those reasons may be quite valid. I wonder, however, if those considerations outweigh the advantages that might be gained by a congregation being somewhat more familiar with a potential future pastor. I know that some pastors will always try to fool a committee; and some churches will tend to misrepresent themselves in various ways. These tendencies cannot be completely corrected, given the sinful nature of humanity. But perhaps there are some very practical ways that our call processes in the major denominations could be improved, thus leading to happier, more productive, and more spiritually satisfying pastorates in our churches.

Thoughts on Flying in the Post 9:11 World:

We returned late last night from Texas where Lydia and I had been to look at a church pastoral position. We flew from Mobile to San Antonio by way of Dallas. We've been on plane flights several times since the terrorist attacks of 9:11; but it has been a few years since we've traveled anywhere by air. This plane trip brought several thoughts to mind. First, I can remember when it was fun to fly. There were certain amenities that came with flying, even for those of us who were sitting in the "economy" class. And on the big jets that made the longer runs, it could seem almost luxurious, even for the "common man." But those days are long gone. Maybe that's a good thing; but every time I fly in the cramped quarters of today's carriers, it makes me a little wistful for the past. (Of course, if I lost a little weight, the quarters wouldn't be quite so cramped; but let's not go there.) Second, we didn't even get any food at the airport or on the plane Friday. I'm not sure whether the advertised snack boxes were for sale on our flight from Mobile, or whether the weather may have precluded making those available. We had plenty of time to make our connection in Dallas, but not plenty of time to get anything to eat. Any way you cut it, air travel can be something of a physical endurance test if you have to make a connection en route. And third, I'm not mad at the government for all the airport security measures; but I'm mad because all of us have to be so careful on the off chance that there will be a nut case who might want to blow up a plane! So our luggage is examined--and in some cases ruined--our pockets and purses are checked, and we have to take our shoes off because of that microscopic probability that a terrorist walks among us. I also have the lingering suspicion that we could handle our airport security better; but not being an expert in the field, I don't know how it would be done. (I also know that some of my ideas would probably meet with howls of protest from civil libertarians and the "politically correct" crowd.) I realize that certain measures must be taken to protect us from threats to our safety. But how far do you go to protect the populace from these threats? Apparently, the Israeli system is even more intrusive, but also more efficient and effective. (I'd be interested to know more about that.) In short, how far can an open society go in policing its citizens before it is no longer a truly open society? I don't know the answer to that; but it's a question we're going to have to answer in the years to come.