Suicide and the church

Today was sent the link to  this blog which asks for prayer for pastors/ministers/ revs etc reminding us and others of our own humanity and frailty.  I decided to google for the story that had prompted it.  A story of a North Carolina pastor's suicide - some of the links were plain news reports whilst others like this one have a comments thread that both saddens and appals me.

This was a big church setup with multiple pastors, the dead man being the senior. It came as a shock to everyone but a scan through the comments remind why it would have been hard for him within a certain theological culture to admit to struggles.  I am sure a diagnosis of cancer would have had sympathy and others covering his work whilst off sick - but despair that can reach suicidal levels is not as 'safe' to admit to.

I am grateful to be in the place I am, with those who care and recognise my problems as illness not a sign of faithlessness or that I am hellbound. But reminded how important it is for the churches to talk about mental health, to deal with it as an issue.

I will be spending the summer in North Carolina - maybe I will have something to give to debate there, or I maybe with those who already get it, American church life is varied not always fitting the images we sometimes get.

Tainted money?

There are occasions when a gift is offered to the church from a controversial source - today I had one of those calls.  It has triggered a lot of thoughts - beyond the details of this case.

What is 'tainted money' - is there such a thing? Perhaps the proceeds of crime, but what about extending that to the proceeds of sweat shop labour, or the arms trade, or a banker's bonus.

From my reflections through the day I have drawn a distinction between money generated through actions we consider dubious and money given by dubious sources but acquired through undisputed means. 

Accepting a gift from the first could be seen as profiting from whatever dubious actions, and encouraging that action. There are very good reasons to step back from money in this context. Although on the other hand Salvation Army founder William Booth was often challenged about recieving inappropriate donations such as from a major brewery (being active temperance campaigners) or big business and is reported at various times to have commented 'Tainted money? 'T ain't enough money'  and that he would 'wash it in the tears of widows and orphans'. In contrast the Sally Army of today refused the charity funds from the final edition of News of the World.

As for the second situation - and my dilemma today - it becomes a question as to whether money is tainted by whose hands it passes. No dubious process was involved in gaining the money, no-one hurt or demeaned or worse. I am being asked to judge the giver not the money - and who of us should cast the first stone.  I don't vet who may slip a note onto the collection plate on a sunday, nor question how they came across that money.  Yet I am required to seek advice on accepting this gift - knowing the source creates the responsibilty, a need to make an assessment, to consider what being associated with you would mean, the ethical position, the conclusions drawn, the statement it would make.

But you offered it with no strings, we don't have to agree with you, or do anything for you in return.  Just as we are called to offer welcome to any and all without judgement, surely we should we willing to accept the gifts offered to us without labelling the givers as good, bad or ugly. Are any of us worthy or pure enough to bring a gift to God? And yet he welcomes us whoever we are, whatever we have done, and whatever we have to offer.  Surely we are called to echo that welcome and love - and rejecting a freely given gift because we don't agree with you doesn't seem to fit.

In the end it will not be my decision, but that of the church leadership together, and with advice from my boss. But for today it has been the pondering.