There are definitely two things you should not write about less you invite controversy: religion and politics. I will reduce my chances by commenting on just one of the pair: religion.
Religious groups like so many others remind one of a traditional family unit since that is basically how each operates whether it be a church, a civic club, a sports team or simply Ma, Pa, Junior and the dog. There will always be some degree of conflict no matter how “ideal” the setting seems. It might be as simple as what’s for supper or who gets to use the remote, there are inevitably disagreements. And since the church is, in a sense, a “family” to survive it has to be good at conflict resolution or agree to disagree by, at times going separate ways, that is by splintering as a last resort.
Older congregants have been through these trials. It might have been as inconsequential as the kinds of flowers (real or artificial) used at the front of the church or should Communion use grape juice or the real thing. Does the preacher spends too much time on social issues and seemingly ignores the Word of God? Then there are other issues that involve the organized church as a whole such as women’s rights, gender and racial concerns and social and economic issues. If the issue is a broad secular one especially with political ramifications one can be sure it will find its way to the local pulpit and the pew.
Is it a problem if the preacher’s trouser legs are too short?
You know some of the hot topics currently being discussed. Basically these splits fall into two philosophical categories broadly classified as liberal and conservative just like in our ongoing political campaigns. A generally accepted definition of a liberal is one who favors change; the conservative holds fast to the traditional or orthodox view. There is not always a clear distinction between the two sides since there may be varying position depending on the subject. Some may not care about the grape juice issue but watch out how money is spent.
I read recently about two religious denominations who held their national meetings one of which I am affiliated. The agendas were generally filled with rather esoteric church matters which missed the headlines of the newspapers and did not make it in the opening TV news segments but once in awhile, there is something that catches the eye of the editor or the producer. Generally it involves what is less explosively referred to as gender issues. The tabloids do not use sensitive gender designations. Sensationalism sells.
The General Assembly of the church of which I am a member did not escape such issues. An overture (a request for action) was debated to amend the church’s Book of Order stating that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to instead read that marriage is a union between two people. It failed (308-338) but only by a narrow margin meaning that it predictably will be resurrected at the next General Assembly meeting. One might ask:
W W J D ?
I did not see this cartoon in the NEW YORKER MAGAZINE but read a report about it in the WSJ. The cartoon showed two well dressed ladies sitting in an elaborately furnished metropolitan church, not Presbyterian, and the cartoonist had drawn a flaming sacrificial site/altar at the front of the church to which a young, bound, unclothed man was being taken.
One of the parishioners whispers to her friend, “This had better be the end of these changes ,or I am out of here.”
Gimme that old time religion
Gimme that old time religion
Gimme that old time religion
It’s good enough for me.
..It was good for Paul and Silas
And it’s good enough for me.
*
Bill Lee, PO Box 128, Hamer, SC 29547