Friday, 27 November 2009
-
Prayer Requests in Church: An Invasion of Privacy?
Today’s church service reminded me of how very much I hate the “Joys and Concerns” section of a church service. As I’ve said in a few comments, I find this to be nothing more than a thinly-veiled excuse to gossip and disrespect people’s privacy. Today at the beginning of church, the pastor drew attention to a new thing in the bulletin stating that, before having the name of an individual printed in the bulletin under “prayer requests”, the person submitting the request to the bulletin needed to get the permission of the ailing individual to put their name on the bulletin (I hope that sentence made sense), in order to be in compliance with HIPAA.
The pastor then followed up with the fact that there is no such requirement for verbal prayer requests, so you didn’t have to get permission to make verbal requests, only written.
Appropriately, immediately following this was the Joys and Concerns section, and the ley leader stood up and made a very sarcastic “praise” of lawyers, “who know so much better than we do how to run our lives.”
I have to say that I appreciated this not one bit.
Joys and Concerns is one thing that annoys me more than anything else about a church service, because as I stated earlier, I feel that it’s usually a direct invasion of a person’s privacy. I was so glad to hear that the church was being required to comply with HIPAA.
For example, when my grandmother became extremely ill and went into hospice care, she specifically requested to my father that he NOT mention her situation at church because she didn’t want extra attention and visits from people she didn’t know that well when she was looking and feeling her worst. Knowing this, my dad went ahead and brought it up in the good old Joys and Concerns section of church, completely going against what she asked him to do, because he figured he knew better than she did what was best for her own peace of mind.
Or, this happened a few weeks ago in church. A woman raised her hand during Joys and Concerns and spoke to the entire congregation of a friend of hers whose colon had burst. The pastor didn’t hear her and asked her to speak louder, and the woman says “Her colon burst!” “WHAT?” “HER COLON BURST.”
(Yes, she seriously said that this woman’s colon had burst, three times, in increasing volume with each repetition.)
First of all, why would you feel the need to articulate that her colon had burst, instead of simply leaving it at “she was hospitalized”? Secondly, I’m pretty sure this woman does not want the whole world to know her highly embarrassing and sensitive situation.
This kind of thing is exactly why it irritated me so much that everyone in the service was so flippant about this HIPAA requirement. Not everyone wants to participate in your gossiping—oh sorry, I mean, prayer.
(I almost asked for the mic so I could criticize the pastor and the lay leader for being so disrespectful, but thought better of it, because they are my employers.)
Does your church have a "joys and concerns" portion of its service? Do you think it benefits those mentioned, or is it an invasion of privacy?
-
recommend
- recs 1
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Jazzyful@xanga
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 707 Comments: 0 33 View all posts by Jazzyful@xanga
Comments (33)
I think it's a good idea, but I also think that some churches take it too far. Personally, I think that prayers are personal. I don't pray out loud or whatever...that's definitely not my thing.
Also, I don't like how some churches feel the need to announce certain things. Why would one person's prayers be any weaker than a whole church's prayers about one subject? It's not like we're voting. God can hear and answer prayers as He wants. If you have a personal issue, as far as I'm concerned, there is no need to tell everyone about it.
But of course, it's whatever you are comfortable with individually.
I hear you on two things. Public prayer requests work in properly sized churches. That is, churches where everyone knows one another. Beyond that, it just becomes room for embarrassment and gossip.
I also hear the inconvenience of speaking the truth to your church employers. You really have to pick your battles.
People should be able to decide whether or not they want to be prayed for.
My church has a book for "special intentions" We write the first name only of a person who we wish to be upheld in prayer during the week. No last names, and no details of their situation. I think this is a much better way to do things. G-d who knows all things, knows best how to minister to that individual, we only need to pray for them by name. The names are read aloud during the 'healing prayer and meditation' section of the service and the congregation prays silently for them.
This is something that irritates me to a great degree also and I had it personally affect me about a year ago. A little over a year ago my husband and I separated. It's complicated but I basically left a bad home situation for my own safety, I did not leave my husband or our marriage. And while I didn't leave him or our marriage, the separation was indefinite. Whether or not we would ever reconcile was unknown at the time, a lot of things had to change first.
Since things were so confusing, and we both still loved each other very much, we kept our issues private. I didn't feel the need to share the details of what was going on with anyone in our lives other than immediate family and the two close friends that helped me out of the situation. I had good reasons for this, namely being that our society considers separation as nothing more than the first stage of divorce and for me and my husband it was anything but, and I didn't want all the negative thoughts polluting my decisions, nor did I want the inevitable gloating on the part of some so-called friends who'd always been insanely jealous of our marriage and several other factors.
My brother-in-law decided to tell his entire church that my husband and I "had a divorce pending". And he did so in the form of a "prayer request". And the one person in the world I didn't want finding out about me and my husband attended that church, along with the rest of her family. And just as I suspected she gloated mercilessly. Everything I'd tried so hard to avoid happening, happened all at once thanks to my brother-in-law's inability to keep his mouth shut. And you know what the kicker was? Divorce was never once mentioned. He told an entire church our private business that he made up! I was absolutely livid. He had no right to share that detail about us, and furthermore there was no need to share that much information. A simple "My brother and his wife need prayer" would have sufficed.
The majority of mainstream Christianity, I've noticed, have slipped into a very sick habit of using their faith to get away with certain things, and not just with prayer requests being a glorified way to gossip or get attention. I have another former friend who was relentless with "praise reports" and updated her facebook constantly with how wonderful her life was, under the guise of "being thankful and praising God" - it's really just a way to "show off". Others treat certain people like crap, giving them dirty looks and treating them as second class to other people because of their lifestyle choices, all in the name of God (they call it "standing up for your beliefs"). And the worst I've encountered yet came from that same incident with my brother-in-law... when I confronted him about it, he actually used every trick in the Bible he could think of to worm his way out of admitting that he was wrong - including telling me that "my pride problem was between me and God".
I'm a strong believer, but modern mainstream Christianity, at least in America, is a big fat joke.
I think you should get the person's permission before mentioning their situation in church. It's not so much about a privacy act, but about common courtesy. Some people feel uncomfortable with others knowing intimate details of their lives. For more private people, it's actually an additional burden to have people they do not know well asking them how they are and checking up on them.
If you wish to pray for someone you believe needs it, do so. In the privacy of your own home, just you and God. If you feel the urge to tell someone else, at least ask the other person how they would feel about it first, and for the sake of common courtesy, do NOT tell the whole church unless you are certain that the person wants this!
So it sounds like either Churches are too cold... or too friendly.... wow, I really hope God is a little bit easier to please than we are.
When I became the pastor of the church I had been attending I removed a similar part of our service. At first, I tried asking for prayer requests for "you," but would get announcements about the government or something else completely off-topic. Now I just have people lift up the names of those they are praying for in the middle of a community prayer. We are a smaller congregation. No more than 100 on Sunday.
My church is what you would consider a mega church, so we don't have the ability to do something like this (though we do have a church prayer list, but it never lists the person's full name, just their first name and first initial of their last name). During prayer in service, a few requests (the most serious) are mentioned, and I've never heard of anyone being offended by that, because they usually are people who are in the most dire need of prayer.
In most congregations I've been involved with that practiced this type of activity I have been pleased. People care. People want to prayer for others,with often great intentions. Sometimes people abuse those sessions with gossip or soap box speeches but that is what overseers are for. Leaders need to be tough in those situations and let people know when their mouths are graves (in a proper manner and forum). For the most part though, I find that praise and petition, joy and concerns, requests and blessings (or whatever they the sessions are called) to be beneficial.
Too often we don't corporately hear the individuals of our congregations or the way in which our Father God is moving amongst our members. It's good for us. And if someone missteps then it shows us where we are also unhealthy and in need of discipline/instruction.
There aren't many situations I can think of that I wouldn't want my faith family to be involved or at least informed. If I believe prayer is powerful and that my family is the church, then what would I want to hide or have kept private? There may be some things but the idea that congregations shouldn't spend time sharing joys/blessings/praises or prayers/concerns/petitions corporately would rub me the wrong way. Maybe we need instruction on how to do it well. We may need to learn to respect one another, to honor privacy, to avoid gossip, to be vulnerable and trusting, to be patient and more. I think removing these kinds of sessions can be a cop-out move. It'd be better to learn to do it well. Every congregation is different and we have to remember that.
Hopefully we can grow into mature individuals and faith communities. Hopefully we can come to a place as a unified body where HIPPA doesn't need to be applied because we love each other so well and are so vulnerable and honoring with one another that the HIPPA standard is below the congregation's. Hopefully we believe the words of scripture and realize how deadly gossip is and how badly we need correction when we miss the mark. Hopefully we get to a place where we don't have to worry about our brothers and sisters invading our privacy because we're so open and they are so respectful.
I'm sorry you experienced this sort of activity in a negative way. Hopefully you can be a voice that guides the leaders (your employers) to a place where they are willing and able to reflect on the health of the congregation and leadership and press forward with truthful teaching that edifies everyone.
Such prayers in the church I belong to (approx. 1,000 members are kept short, to the point, without causing embarrassment to the person(s) being prayed for. IMHO praying for other church members during the service should not be ended, given the admonition in Hebrews 10 regarding building up and encouraging other people. (or being there for them in a rough time.)
@TheGreatBout@xanga - You really are idealistic, aren't you. "Hopefully" we can do this, and "hopefully" we can do that, "hopefully" we can believe this and not gossip, etc.
You are dealing with humans here. Falliable, sinful, prideful humans, who will gossip, look down their noses at, be pious, act holier than thou, etc.
Rather than "it'd be better to learn to do it well", perhaps a smarter approach would be for parishoners, who have knowledge of someone's difficulties, to bring it to the attention of the Pastor or Elders, let them contact the party and ask if it would be alright to bring it forth for community prayer. Often times, there is someone in the congregation that has a solution or can at least assist in some ways. And sometimes not, as in the diagnosis of Alzheimers, etc. When you bring intimate situations in front of the congregation, you remove the afflicted persons control over that information or situation. If it's appropriate, sure, bring it forth for corporate prayer, that is Biblically based and encouraged. But Jesus knew when to pray to the Father in private as well. And He got after the Pharisees for their "public prayers" all the time; He knew they were doing it for show.
As far as HIPAA, yes, it's a shame we have to put up with more government nonsense, even in worship. But as long as we want the benefit of non-profit status, then we have to dance to government's tune.
To the OP: I sense a lot of bitterness, and I am betting it has roots deeper than just the "Joys and Concerns" section you mention. I think I would have a little one-on-one with the Pastor, and thoughtfully and logically lay out the reasons you think this is inappropriate, citing examples but not names. That way you are not gossiping, which is one of the things you mention several times. And you have to be doubly careful, if they are your employers. I question the wisdom of worshipping where you work, ethical situations exactly like this are why.
I agree that intimate details (like burst colons) need not be mentioned. All that one has to do is to annouce that "Megan's friend Mary has some serious health issues, and we need to lift her up in prayer". That's it. The congregation with one voice prays for God to show her mercy and heal her. If people want to know more or how they can help, then they can ask you, and you are able to disseminate information you believe appropriate. When you have the Pastor dodging the legal issues by announcing that verbal requests are not covered, and then a lay leader getting up and sarcastically "praising" the lawyers that "know how to run our lives much better than we do", sounds like you have some serious political issues that need to be addressed. That would leave me with the impression that the Pastor may not be trustworthy, if he is looking for ways to get around the requirements. And I have to agree with the comment about "lawyers knowing how to run our lives..." if it weren't for lawsuits and damages (mostly perceived) and greed, there wouldn't be a need for lawyers and all the legalistic nonsense we all have to abide by to satisfy the whiners among us.
That said, I believe there is a place for corporate prayer in a congregation. But privacy has to be respected, lest it turn into a gossip fest.
My church has this thing where you can call in your prayer requests during the week and people will pray for you. Then on Sunday morning, the prayer requests received during the week will be gone through. It takes a long time to go through the prayers because my pastor mentions people by name - often times using full names (first and last, no middle names, only) - and prays for that person and their specific situation.
I just find it annoying because it takes so long to get through prayer when our announcements are long to begin with. I never even thought about it being a violation of HIPAA laws. I wonder if those laws can apply in a situation like that because a lot of the prayers coming through have to do with so-and-so having to be hospitalized because of illness.
It is NEVER appropriate to ask for prayer for somebody else. At a very small church I attended, women would often ask for prayer for their nonbelieving husbands, and I felt that was inappropriate. It is only appropriate when the person themselves are too shy, or whatever, to go up to the front and ask for prayer by themselves- at that point, it's ok to have a more vocal member go up with them and voice the prayer request.
At the same time though, yes, it is dangerous to ask for prayer. Once when I was thirteen or so, my Sunday School teacher was apparently writing down prayer requests, asked if I had any, and I asked for prayer for some family situations- my uncle was going through a divorce at that time, and was having a very rough time. So she wrote down "Prayer for Kayla- family troubles" and my parents flipped out, thinking I was talking about them. Jesus Christ. I think it's more trouble than it's worth- if you want prayer, join a small group where you're all friends.
The HIPAA law does not apply to churches. While it may be wise to consider the circumstances surrounding a prayer request this is not a violation of HIPAA. HIPAA applies to health providers, insurance companies, etc. So, while a person may not appreciate being on the church's prayer list, and while it may be considered a violation of their privacy to mention intimate details during prayer requests, it is not a violation of HIPAA law.
this is sickening! we don't have a time segment like that at my church, but sometimes my class spontaneously has their own. as much as it's meant to be a safe place to share what we're going through with each other in the name of prayer, that's not the feeling it gives me.
okay, and the lay leader thing: i wish people could learn how to grow up a little. anytime someone includes an "outsider", or works to protect the rights/privacy/equality/etc of someone other than ME--well, that's fair game to lash out with unwarranted, childish verbal attacks. *of course* the only reason we would choose to say "brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers" is political correctness. *of course* that's why we uphold the rights of the mysterious "other"...@TheGreatBout@xanga - I agree with you. We consider the people we go to church with family. We all share prayer requests during Sunday School, occasionally church service during Wednesday prayer meeting. The idea isn't to just share, pray that one time and then go about our business the rest of the week gossiping about the prayer requests from Sunday or Wednesday. We write them down and pray for the requests thorough the week on our own. Maybe the next Sunday or a couple of weeks later there will be an update on how God has answered the prayers, or just and update on the situation and a request for more prayer. Yes you do have to be discreet, not always mentioning every detail of a request, but if you can't ask your church family to pray for you or your loved ones then what are you doing going to that church? My mother in law belongs to the Christian Science "church" and she would not think of asking for prayer from fellow church goers. She calls a "practitioner" and PAYS them to pray for her. I think that is so sad! There is no sense of family at all. Sad very sad. And one young lady thought it was inappropriate to pray for unbelievers....oh my goodness! That is just ridiculous!
So Revelife will not feature anything that has anything to do with Catholocism anymore, but posts by people who hate Christians? That's no problem.
By the way, as @charliesmith - said, HIPAA does not apply to Churches. This post was pointless. But that seems to be the normal thing here.
@scrambledmegsntoast@xanga - Maybe we can scheme something...
@TheGreatBout@xanga - I don't think it's worthwhile anymore. Every single post that has had a "Catholic" perspective has been rejected by this new editor. Revelife was doing so well for a while, too.
@scrambledmegsntoast@xanga - Well, hopefully my catholic focused ones will make it in and it'll at least be something.
@Ork58@xanga - What the Great Bout said is not idealism - it's the picture of the church given in the new testament. It's what we all ought to be moving towards, and being gracious to one another as we fail in the process. But I can tell you that my church looks like all the "hopefully"s mentioned, even though it is an 800 member church. Yeah, occasionally someone slips into gossip, but the vast majority of the time, we truly and humbly bring our requests before the throne of grace and it is a beautiful work of the Spirit in us.
@deepestrecesses - But think about it--if you contracted AIDs, would you want that announced publicly in church?
@charliesmith - The HIPPA law does not apply to churches, true, but if this pastor wants to apply HIPPA regulations to his church, he is free to do that. But, of course, HIPPA also covers what is spoken, not just what is written, so he is only doing it halfway. I am a nurse, I am required to follow HIPPA, and I know the rules.