A recent California Supreme Court decision has caused a considerable amount of controversy among judges and laypeople alike. The court ruled that an accident victim could sue a good Samaritan for damages inflicted while they were being pulled free of a car wreck. This may or may not shock you; it didn’t shock me. But it does set a precedent that is worth a look from a church management perspective.

Imagine for a moment that the case was one of slightly different circumstances – not one of physical trauma but of emotional and behavioral trauma. Suppose that the accident victim was a new attendee at your church. Maybe he’s a shy person who doesn’t like to get too involved right away. He shows up after the announcements and leaves during the closing prayer.

The good Samaritan in our re-imagining of the case is another attendee at your church. She’s a relatively new Christian, eager to exercise her faith and keen to be salt and light to those around her. She has noticed the shy man and feels obligated to show him Christ’s love by cornering him and inviting him to have lunch with her following the Sunday morning service.

Over lunch the shy man opens up to the good Samaritan, and she learns that he is deeply troubled and a recovering drug addict. She learns that his dealer was a good friend of his growing up and that he is heartbroken by the amount of pain and suffering his good friend has brought into his life.

The good Samaritan, heart brimming with compassion and zeal, feels compelled to give what she believes is good advice. Based on the recent nature of her own salvation and the consequently unbridled nature of her ideals when it comes to morality and human relationships, she advises the shy man that he should reconcile with his friend and attempt to bring him to faith in Christ.

If the shy man follows the good Samaritan’s advice, what is the most likely outcome? Certainly, he will be faced with temptation that he may not be able to handle, especially when interacting with an old friend who has hurt him in the past and likely has a considerable amount of control over his sense of self worth. It is likely that the shy man will relapse into his addiction, and further damage will be done to his psyche by his “friend.” Worst of all, his faith will be damaged. He was following well meaning, Christian advice and principles, was he not? How could that kind woman from the church lead him astray?

Ultimately, people’s actions are their own responsibility, regardless of who is advising them. If the shy man were to end up dead of a drug overdose, his blood is not on the good Samaritan’s hands, so to speak. It was his choice to follow her advice.

However, as salt and light, it is our responsibility to ensure we are exercising God-given wisdom as well as basic intelligence while we are showing love and support to those around us. Letting zeal and idealism cloud our common sense and understanding of human limitations and weakness is not a good way to show Christ’s love.

The general consensus of the Supreme Court of California was that it is the responsibility of the trained authorities, such as paramedics, police and fire services, to do any rescuing. Should that really be the case? Should church leadership follow suit and discourage our congregations from helping each other in ways that are “best left to the trained professionals”? After all, these situations can get quite messy. The case of the drug addict above is fictional yet well within the realm of possibility, but I am aware of a case where a congregant gave another congregant financial advice that caused her to lose everything. The ensuing actions by the second congregant were extremely disruptive to the church, and no doubt devastating to the first congregant, the one who gave the advice in the first place.

Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court of California – to a certain degree. I agree that it is the responsibility of trained professionals to provide aid to those placed under their care, whether citizens of a city or members of a church community. But I also think it is the responsibility of the authorities to ensure that the general population is properly trained to exercise wisdom and common sense during emergencies. Perhaps the good Samaritan in our story was never told that she should bring a person in need to her pastor or an elder, or at least to consult one before diving in to help. At least that’s the way I see it.

Until next time,

Ken Godevenos

P.S. Check out the upcoming Church Solutions Conference & Expo scheduled for Feb. 17-19, 2009, in Phoenix. I can’t say enough about it. This event will be time well spent.

Related Content:

Ken’s Most Recent Monthly Column, “The Church Staff Is Full of Good Ideas”

Ken’s Layman’s Devotional Commentary

After a trip downtown recently, I wondered whether or not there had been any opportunities to model charity along the way – and how well I did. There was, of course, the fellow playing his guitar in the subway station with the case wide-open inviting donations. I chose to oblige him. Maybe because it was Christmas. Maybe I was just more aware of the need to do good deeds without worrying about converting someone since I read David Kinnaman’s “UnChristian.” Maybe because he had met my strict criteria for donating on the street (that is, he was actually doing something rather than just holding out a cup). Later on in the day, when driving home, I noticed a car that had spun around and slid backwards into a big snow bank, getting two wheels fully entrenched. I felt compelled to stop and use that snow shovel I carried in the trunk. That action must have been because it was Christmas, or again, it may have been Kinnaman’s book. The lady was really so thankful. In both cases, doing good had felt good. My grandchildren that were with me were certainly impressed.

I then started pondering whether or not the degree of a congregation’s charitableness is dependent on how charitable its leadership is – and exactly how a church’s leadership can model being charitable for others.

The first question is a little easier. Charity is an attitude, and attitudes are certainly learned. Two of my five grandchildren were born in Dallas and now live in Murrell’s Inlet, S.C. Their parents literally detest winter and snow, and have no difficulty sharing their opinion openly and often. The two boys, 4 and 2 years old, could be heard this past week (visiting me in Toronto) saying things like, “I hate snow, I hate boots, I hate big bulky winter coats.” They lasted only minutes making snow angels and rolling down snow-covered hills in the backyard with their three northern cousins. I’m sure their parents’ attitude affected theirs. I am also convinced being charitable is an attitude impacted by others, and it does influence behavior. In short, it can be modeled. Your church’s charitableness is impacted by how charitable its leadership is.

The word “charity” has several meanings that are of interest to us. First, it means the voluntary giving of help – typically, but not necessarily – in the form of money, to those in need. Secondly, it refers to kindness and tolerance in judging others, suggesting mercy as a synonym. (Interestingly, the word “mercy” has some very relevant definitions itself, including compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone of whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm; an event, the occurrence of which prevents something bad from happening or provides relief from suffering; and a desire to relieve suffering motivated by compassion.) Thirdly, according to the dictionary, charity is an archaic love of humankind, typically in a Christian context, as in “faith, hope, and charity.”

Here, then, are some ways you, as a church leader, can actually model being charitable in and for your church:

• Are you generous with how you treat employees, including those you may have to let go, when it comes to compensation?
• Have you shown charity to those that do not always agree with you in respect to the church’s direction?
• Is your board and/or pastoral team involved in doing good deeds themselves including taking their turns in helping shut-ins, out-of-the-cold shelter services, filling Christmas shoe boxes or other such programs?
• Have you been "caught" doing good deeds – helping a stuck driver or mowing an elderly or sick person’s lawn, etc.?
• Are you and your team always heard offering words of kindness and tolerance when others judge someone?
• Even when you’ve had the chance to “destroy” someone because of what they did to you or your church, have you shown compassion or forgiveness rather than insisting on your pound of flesh just because a wrong had been committed?
• Have you ever worked relentlessly to prevent something bad from happening to a family in your church such as a deportation or a personal bankruptcy?
• Have you or your team ever taken part in a major effort to relieve suffering, motivated by compassion, such as being part of a team during the hurricane catastrophe in New Orleans or elsewhere?
• Have you ever had a dinner at your church for the homeless?
• Can you be accused, and if tried, found guilty of actually loving humanity as the Apostle Paul exhorts us to do in I Corinthians 13:13?

Recently I came across a quotation of Immanuel Kant, the 18th century German philosopher. His thinking and teaching posed several challenges for Christianity, but this quote, perhaps by coincidence, takes charity to another level: “Beneficence (generosity or charity) is a duty; and he who frequently practices it, and sees his benevolent intentions realized comes, at length, really to love him to whom he has done good.”

These thoughts actually help us get a better understanding of what Jesus meant when he told us to “love one another” and/or to “love our enemies.” Being charitable is indeed a duty for the Christian. Maybe if I keep on giving a dollar to the same street musician every time I see him, or I keep helping my neighbor, I will indeed come to love him as a human being. And maybe, just maybe, both of them will be interested as to what makes me care and love and exhibit “charity” that way. I encourage you to make increased evidence of being charitable in your own life, and by example, in the life of your church, two key goals for 2009. At least that’s the way I see it.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Ken Godevenos

P.S. The Church Solutions Conference & Expo is approaching. The conference is scheduled for Feb. 17-19, 2009 in Phoenix. I can’t say enough about it. This event will be time well spent.

Related Content:

Read Ken’s Most Recent Monthly Column: “The Church Staff Is Full of Good Ideas

Read Ken’s Layman’s Devotional Commentary

About a month ago, CNN informed us of the American Humanists Association's (AHA) intentionally provocative Christmas ad campaign. The ad copy went like this, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake.” Every year around this time we seem to get into a debate about what Christmas is currently all about. Hot topics of the celebratory season range from commercialism to the freedom to remind people that December 25 is indeed a religious holiday, let alone a Christian one.

AHA this year came rushing to the rescue of agnostics, atheists and other nonbelievers with their campaign because these people “feel a little alone during the holidays.” AHA’s ads refer readers to a Web site that allows them to connect and organize accordingly. A spokesman for the association indicated, “We are trying to plant a seed of rational thought and critical thinking and questioning in people's minds.” AHA members believe they can “live ethical lives of value to self and humanity” without theism. Back in October, the British arm of Humanists (BHA) started advertising: “There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Now, that’s quite a gamble, isn’t it?

All over North America, the number of self-proclaimed Christians who now think that it is politically incorrect to wish people a Merry Christmas is growing. While some Christian conservatives are trying to keep Christ in Christmas, many are giving in to what society, as a whole, seems to be dictating. Earlier this week I attended a packed concert hall where the Toronto Symphony Orchestra played, with great gusto, a wonderful rendition of Handel’s Hallelujah Chorus. Out of the thousands there, a small handful rose to their feet. Was it because they did not know the tradition or was it because they did not want to insult those non-Christians who may have been sitting next to them?

What does all this have to do with “Covenant Leadership” of a church? Simply this: It affords us an opportunity to really reflect on what messages we expect our staff to pass on to our congregants with respect to taking a stand on Christmas and other sacred holidays we celebrate as Christians.

For starters, we can encourage our staff to use what the AHA and the BHA are doing as a segue. Our staff can share the anecdotes about taking Christ out of Christmas and discuss with their constituents (youth, children, adult classes, seniors, etc.) matters regarding God’s existence and so-called secular morality. Or how about this question? Should we still be encouraging our people to have nativity scenes on their lawns? Are we brave enough to have them outside our church? Perhaps we need to encourage our staff to remind others that while some like AHA and BHA scorn Christmas, there are millions and millions around the world that do in fact celebrate it as the birth of Christ. Thank God, believers, we are not alone.

CNN implied that this new “in-your-face” affront of atheists against God’s existence is due to best-selling atheist authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. But CNN was also quick to point out that a public life poll by the Pew Forum earlier this year found 92 percent of Americans believe in God. How is it that a minority of 8 percent can impact our own freedom to worship God and in our case, the birth of Christ, outside the walls of our churches, as much as atheists and agnostics have?

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which operates the Metro in Washington, D.C., said the agency accepts ads that aren't obscene or pornographic. Therfore, ads that question the existence of God and imply that people can be good at “Xmas” without having to believe in the Christ of Christmas are perfectly fine with them. Maybe it’s time our staff members tell congregants to put some more ads up that speak to the contrary – to the existence of God and to the birth of His Son celebrated at Christmas. Of course, we’ll make sure they’re not “obscene or pornographic.” (In Canada, Bus Stop to Bible Studies is trying to organize a campaign to do this. Check out their “contact us” page as they’re looking to get established in the U.S.)

Once again, thank you for your readership during this past year. I pray that you and yours will have a really blessed and merry Christmas – unless, of course, you’ve resigned your self to simply enjoying some “happy holidays.” As for my house, my church and me – we’ll be standing up for the Hallelujah Chorus!

Until next time,

Ken Godevenos

P.S. The Church Solutions Conference & Expo is right around the corner, scheduled for Feb. 17-19, 2009, in Phoenix. I can’t say enough about it. This event will be time well spent.

Related Content:

Ken’s Most Recent Monthly Column, “When Change Comes to Your Church”

Ken’s Layman’s Devotional Commentary

Atheists Place Sign at Wash. State Capitol Next to Nativity