Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Guide Weather Subscribe Contact Us November 1, 2004 Warning prophets are dismissed as cranks Rob Asghar They laughed at a malcontent on a recent Sunday at a historic church; and it was an allegory of election-eve America. I no longer regularly attend this church, which was once the nation's largest Protestant congregation. I had been active there for more than a decade and had helped recruit some of its current pastoral leaders, but eventually had to turn away, frustrated that the management concerns of many, including myself, were falling on deaf ears, as debts mounted and attendance declined all the while. A group of lay leaders there had been desperate to keep the leadership from making new real estate purchases that would put it further in debt. They asked me to come back to offer them moral support at a business meeting a few Sundays back. I returned and sat in a back pew to watch the congregational conflagration. Over and over, concerned men and women stood up to ask bold questions about why the church should go further into debt at this time, but received silky smooth responses about how all would be well and that the congregation merely needed to trust God's providence and the discernment of high committees that approved the purchases. (Such approvals had in fact been hardly unanimous and had involved anguished contention; but you would never know that from how the issue was portrayed by the church's senior leaders.) Soon, loyalty kicked in. The larger mass of congregants began to show its irritation at those who dared question the intentions, competence or decency of the senior leaders. Any opportunity to amen words of support for the purchase were met with hostile applause - hostile in its intention to shame those who were searching for answers for how such a great church could make so many bad decisions and still feel so confident about itself. In classic Roberts' Rules of Order fashion, loyalists made motions to cut the debate short so that they could approve the purchase and go off to lunch. Those who insisted on continuing the debate grew shriller in their feelings that they were going unheard. One discontented and formerly influential church member suddenly stood up to beg people to open their eyes to the problems facing the church and to consider that God may be more present in the act of opposition to the status quo than in meek acceptance of it. And there it happened: The loyalists looked upon this angry prophet as people look upon all angry prophets: as a crank. They now had a reason to chuckle, shake their heads, and feel all the better for their position. I sat in the back pew and felt my own frustration simmer. I wanted to come forward, grab a microphone and lecture the loyalists in Atticus Finch fashion: "You fools: You have happily stood by as one blunder after another has been committed, all out of your supposed deep faith. And now a great institution moves ever closer to its demise, sped along by your na�vete. You may mock these people who seem so disloyal to you. But when this great hall shuts down, it will be on your head." But I gave no such speech. What's Atticus Finch to me is Mental Patient No. 3274 to the rest of the happy mob, and I'd already played that role there before in the past. The purchase was finally approved, and all was well, if you were a loyalist, except for that nagging irritation about why so many people are so upset with the church's current direction. That same loyalty drives too many supporters of George Bush. They attempt to see around a mountain of problems, certain that staying on track will take us heavenward and not off a cliff. Not all who have supported Bush or worked on his behalf are so self-blinded. Peter Galbraith, an expert on Saddam's regime who assisted the Pentagon in its war planning, has expressed his grave concerns about how the war aftermath was handled and how Pentagonians like Paul Wolfowitz ignored his cautions. In the Boston Globe last week, he wrote: In spite of the chaos that followed the war, I am sure that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. It is my own country that is worse off - 1,100 dead soldiers, billions added to the deficit, and the enmity of much of the world. Someone out there has nuclear bomb-making equipment, and they may not be well disposed toward the United States. Much of this could have been avoided with a competent postwar strategy. But without having planned or provided enough troops, we would be a lot safer if we hadn't gone to war. Too many Bush loyalists would dismiss Galbraith as yet another crank. And regardless of what happens tomorrow, we are worse off for their approach. Rob Asghar can be reached at [email protected]. His Web site is www.DimeStoreGuru.com. DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Slippers Isotoner Slippers Dsw Shoes Ceramic Piggy Banks Fanny Mae Eloans Calenders 2005 Calender 2005 Accelerate Weight Loss Programs Citibank Student Loans Acs Loan Matchmaking & Dating Scripts Adventure Travel Conference Calls - $50/Month Security Systems student loan consolidation helzberg diamonds Click Here Site Search: .:Advertisements:. RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams