2 minute read
Something that drives me bonkers about Christian culture is the default preoccupation with its institutional reputation. Have you noticed this? It seems like Jesus followers have been socially conditioned in such a way that their instinctual response to troubling news is consideration of the institutional ramifications rather than concern for the well-being of the person or people. Someone on the board of directors embezzled $100,000 dollars? “How will the donors respond?” The youth pastor had an affair with an underage girl? “Are the parents going to speak out?”
I lived on Baylor‘s campus when news of the football team’s sexual abuse scandal broke. It was beyond horrifying how many “good people,” whose character I trusted, immediately fixated on how this would impact the Baptist university’s national reputation. I heard administrators, faculty, staff, students, and alumni alike question the decision to even fire the football coach because of how it might harm the quality of the burgeoning football program. It was appalling how few people expressed any concern whatsoever for the rape victims. Some even victim blamed.
For the life of me, I cannot figure out how professing Christians can in good conscience square this fixation with The Way of Jesus. Our Lord tells a powerful parable in Matthew 18. A man who owns 100 sheep and has one wander away, so he leaves the 99 to find it. That should be a defining Kingdom ethic for Jesus followers. Our foremost concern shouldn’t be the oversight of the flock, but the safety of the single vulnerable sheep. Yet how often have I heard stories of longtime church members who go through a divorce and not once get even a wellness check phone call?
It’s not that I’m oblivious to the crucial role of institutions. I’m not. It’s that my chief concern is getting our priorities right. My primary consideration is the person’s or people’s well-being while my secondary consideration is such transcendental qualities as love, truth, beauty, goodness, wisdom, and the like. Take that youth pastor, for example. First, is the underage girl OK? Is she safe? Does she need therapy? Second, what are the facts of who, what, when, where, and why it happened? Then and only then do I have tertiary consideration for the institutional ramifications.
The original beatniks drank deeply from the well of existentialist philosophy. These were no saints, but they tended to be empathetic toward the plight of humanity. The whole name of the Beat Generation referred to their identification with those who feel beaten down. They weren’t focused on building institutions, but on being fully human. Part of what made the movement so countercultural in the straight-laced 1950s was their focus on loving one another, listening carefully, and being present for those who are hurting. Sounds like The Way of Jesus to me.
