When I was little, I never recall my parents telling me not to talk to strangers, although we did get the "Stranger Danger" talk at primary school. This instilled a knowledge of the necessity to scream loudly if anyone so much as offers you a lolly. After all, you would never know if accepting it would lead to you waking up in an ice-bath with a note thanking you for the kidney (or worse).
But lollies and "Stranger Danger" and so on aside, I've always found that conversations with strangers can be quite interesting. Some have been occasionally deeply odd, but for the most part fun.
There's something unusual, yet fascinating, about conversations that run to practically an hour long with a semi-stranger before you introduce youselves. The conversation I had on the weekend with said semi-stranger started out with the weather lately and tourism, moved to the planning potential for the local area, then through to politics, the treatment of David Hicks and Mohamed Haneef, our hopes for a change of government come the election, back to the local area and then religion (you're not meant to talk politics or religion with friends, apparently, let alone strangers, but hey, why not break with convention I say!).
And religion is where it got interesting.
Let me explain the back story as best I can. If you could just cue the soft-focus, Raoul? Thank-you...
There's a long history of religious involvement in the local area, although in recent decades that has declined, with businesses that had been run by one of the denominations in the local area closing. That happened about a decade or so ago, I believe, although I'm not entirely sure of the dates or the reasons for the closures (only moved here a couple years ago). However, in conversations with people around the area in the past, I've picked up on there being a lot of resentment about the businesses closing. It seems like the decisions were rushed, people lost jobs with short notice and although it was some time ago, there's a lot of hurt still felt by people.
Previously this topic had only come up with people who had actually been employed by the businesses or were members of the church. I'd not actually discussed it with someone who was looking at it through "external" eyes, if that makes sense, and didn't approach it with the biases of being involved in one way or another.
Apparently the resentment isn't just felt by people involved. There's still a fair amount residual resentment in the community. It meant that other businesses lost trade and closed or ran at a loss when people moved away, house prices were down, incomes disappeared, etc, and it took time to build it up again to where it is today (which is thriving, really, and with a housing market where entry-level housing costs have increased by 40% in the past 18 months).
However, this isn't my point. It's just the background to something that I don't entirely understand myself (you can stop the soft-focus now, Raoul!).
What I found fascinating in the conversation, yet also rather sad, is the way in which churches acting corporately can disappoint and hurt people who aren't members or employed by them, but those in the communities around. And then churches wonder why people are hesitant to get involved with them or flat-out dislike them. There are already lots of people out there who dislike church anyway. And an amazing number who think Christians are hypocritical jerks, utter w***ers or *whatever totally creative swearword you can come up with and insert in this space* (yet who often have friends who are Christians).
It's almost like there's an expectation that instead of doing good in the long-run, there's going to be more disappointment. Due to the way human nature is, I suppose I'm used to the concept of church people being hurt by others within churches/church administration or those who don't attend church being put off religion due to their experiences with unpleasant individuals from one denomination or the other (should we be used to that? Hmmm). But when it came to considering how churches as a corporate structure could have a strong negative impact on people not personally involved with them, it was sort of new territory - perhaps because you sort of think of church admin being removed from the vast majority of people's daily lives.
It made me wonder how churches can respond when someone feels that way. It would just seem ironic and completely trite to suggest God loves them and cares about them when churches so often haven't shown that. How is the damage done meant to be repaired? Can it be? Should churches as corporate beings be exploring relationships, thoughts and perceptions outside of what they believe to be their immediate sphere of impact (ie: church members, those with close ties)? What more do churches have to know about public relations that they currently don't? How can churches go about reconnecting with communities?
Hmm...