I love the thought from Seth Godin and your application of it. I agree that the more we try to keep others or ourselves happy, we will miss the better use of our time and resources on those whom we can really help.
The real discernment for me is distinguishing between the constructively critical and the dangerously critical. I need to listen to those who can help me or our expression of the Church improve.
If I have proper, godly leadership in my elders (or authority structure) I am better off to not apologize for cultural expression, preferences, style, etc – and to “encourage the brother” to move on.

I think I learned this a long time ago when I was working with multiple campus ministries. I would criticize them because I didn’t think they were doing what I thought they should be doing. So, I would think that they were “missing it” and then one day God pretty much told me what you just said. It’s the Body of Christ, as much as I would like everyone to be a thumb, it isn’t going to happen. The thumb does something entirely different than the big toe, yet they are dependent on each other to be part of the whole movement.

You couldn’t expect one to do what the other does because they weren’t made for that function. I believe the church would be ten times more effective if we 1. Recognized our differences; 2. Supported each other even though there are differences; and 3. Steered people to the right churches so their passions can be aligned correctly.

That is going to take a major leap of faith and maturity in the church for that to happen but it certainly would be worth a try.

I have had this discussion with a friend. He is in the battle of sound at his church…a lot of people say it is to loud, which is causing great stress to him and the sound guys. A lot of energy has gone into researching and dialoging about how loud things are, sad very sad that that is the conversation that they are having.

Churches are made up of all different kinds of people, who are uniquely wired by God to have all sorts of passions and interests. That’s the picture of the body of Christ.

The issue, however, is that the Church today often looks like a dismembered body that has been pulled in all different directions. I’m pretty sure this is not what God had in mind, as there seems to be very little unity within the Church. But, I’m even more sure that he is still going to use it to do great things.

Differences in passions, style preferences, etc. should not be the cause of long-suffering of the leadership of a local church, in my opinion. There’s numerous churches that can suffice those things. But, what do they all believe? That’s where it gets interesting…

Good word today, Tyler.

once i spoke directly with a certain pastor of a large church and he told me that he used to worry about people getting mad (read: really uncomfortable) about his sermon delivery style and his bluntness/candor/honesty about certain topics. He admitted that he used to worry about people (the complainers) leaving the church. But the big irony was that once he stopped worrying about them and stopped apologizing, the church entered into another phase of growth (spiritual and numerical). Of course, many of the complainers left….

(your mileage may vary

Leaders need to know what they’re about. Not every church can accomplish every vision / mission / style. I also think that this “mission statement” (sorry, that phrase kinda gags me and takes me back to meetings where these things were wrestled over again and again, but still, the concept stands) needs to be short and simple enough that the leaders AND the people can say it consistently, quickly, and by heart. Then it’s not as hard to deal with the complainers. I’ve had lots of complainers over the years, but the easiest ones to reply to were those questions where what they wanted to see (or didn’t want to see) fell way outside of the scope of our church.

I’m a bit new to your blog Tyler. Found my way here with the ChurchRater.com series.

In my experience, pastors already do a fantastic job of ‘doing church’ unapologetically… too often to a fault.

I’m one of those “critical church members”, and unapologetically so myself. I see the administration of The Church and the role of the Pastor through Biblical and Theological lenses, as well as the lenses I have acquired through my undergrad education. I have rarely voiced any concern for a Biblical or Theological stance a pastoral leader has ever taken, but I have voiced concerns for methodological issues as they relate to organizational effectiveness.

If a pastors decisions marginalize swaths of people and there are viable alternatives to avoid that from happening and still accomplish the same goal, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t explore those other options. I don’t mind being the guy asking those questions.

Unfortunately, the leaders I chose to follow had human issues as well that led them to refuse to accept any form of critique, no matter how friendly and well meaning it was (or as they called it, “divisiveness”).

The problem with this stance is that it’s not at all pastoral. It is absolutely ridiculous to have to engage your people in why the music style it what it is, or why the drapes are purple and not floral, or why we have more songs after the sermon than before…. but these are all opportunities to do what a pastor is called to do… shepherd the people entrusted to you by God. Telling your people to deal with it or leave (I don’t assume that’s what your advocating, but it does happen) doesn’t seem to follow the predominant metaphor for pastoral practice when the shepherd goes after the one to shepherd it back into the fold.

And if there’s that much riding on seemingly petty issues, how much more important are issues of greater significance (“why don’t we do observe communion every week?” “why are we located in ______ if our mission field is in _______?” … you get the point).

There’s a major difference between critical (my personal preferences aren’t being allowed for and I don’t like it) and concerned (I don’t see how this will work for the benefit of this church, either now or in the future), and there’s enough ‘critical’ on both sides of the aisle to choke out the Church from the inside.

Don Miller’s post today seemed somewhat appropriate and spoke a bit to this issue, and with a great deal of balance. http://donmilleris.com/2010/03/02/a-slave-to-public-opinion-false-redemption-and-a-jury-of-peers/

Almost all criticism outside of relationship is completely meaningless. Think about American Idol for a second…why do the contestants often not value the judges’ opinions? I truly think it is because the judges have NO relationship with any of them. If they hung out with Simon and recognized why his opinion mattered, they would care.

This very same idea is so connected to what you said. Sure you can be the critical member towards a pastor, but if your criticism isn’t first rooted in relationship…it isn’t ever going to be valued.

I see what your saying, I just don’t know that it’s as clear cut as the whole issue coming down to relationship. AI contestants seem to forget that Simon is arguably one of the best at what he does… and they are not.

There’s a lot of issues that play into the rejection of input from others. Fear, insecurity, and pride top the list. If I’m not willing to be humble and realize that I’m not an expert in everything, I’m not going to take criticism well, regardless of who it comes from and how deep our relationship goes.

There’s also a theological component to this. We’ve never met each other in person, but we do actually have a relationship through Christ. That certainly doesn’t anyone license to be a jerk about there critique, but if that critique is motivated by love, biblically based, and seeks to be edifying to the Church, why does it matter who mouthed the words at that point?