Ship of Fools: Purgatory: What one might consider an adequate reason to leave a church

Thread: Purgatory: What one might consider an adequate reason to leave a church Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000807

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Hi, I'm Wood. You might remember me from a very long time ago. I don't post here much these days, because generally I don't have anything to say that other people can't say better.

But here goes. I have been going to the same church for sixteen years. My children were dedicated there. We have seen a lot of good and bad times there. In the last six or seven years, though, I have become more and more out of step with the church and its teaching. Things that happened at my church while I was not there yesterday (I was driving home from a wedding in London Village) led me to talk with Mrs Wood. We made the decision to make the break last night.

I don't believe in church hopping. I have in the past sneered at the sort of people who go to different churches because they don't like the new minister's teaching style, or because the other place has "better worship" (code for "a slightly tighter music group" generally) or because they had an argument with someone.

Churches are, like families, communities full of people whom you must love and tolerate and get infuriated by and infuriate and apologise to and all that.

They are not, I have often considered, things you leave.

So yeah, it took a great deal of time and thought and hand-wringing and navel-gazing and all that emo crap before I was able to say, "that's it."

I expect that some people are going to ask why. Suffice to say that the issue is not important here — it's a bona fide Dead Horse, in fact — but that it boils down to this:

"Could these two dear friends of mine, these faithful Christians who are members of a notionally compatible denomination, be made welcome among the congregation of my church and be allowed to take communion? No? Then I cannot be part of this church anymore."

That's the important part of it. I couldn't be part of a community that excludes other Christians because of who they are.

But the morning after the decision has brought in me all sorts of weird conflicting emotions — I took the pulpit in this church, I gave years of my life to youth work, to children's work, to leading house groups, to working as cleaner and administrator at times, I was baptised there.

Yeah. Sorry. Navel-gazing.

But here's the question and the point. Assuming we're not talking about extreme stuff like your minister doing Chris Brain nonsense or suddenly revealing himself as a Satanist Dennis Wheatley-style or something, but that we're talking about the doctrinal or relational difference that would make you leave behind the church community you had been part of man (or woman) and boy (or girl).

What would be that final straw to make you throw it all away?

[ 26. July 2011, 07:25: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Here's a couple of pointers born of my own experience:

a) when Paul's admonition "your meetings do you more harm than good" becomes a personal reality

b) when you no longer feel the church is healthy or safe

c) if you feel you are (or are being pressured to be) more committed to the church, its aims and objectives than to your spouse.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Here's a couple of pointers born of my own experience:

a) when Paul's admonition "your meetings do you more harm than good" becomes a personal reality

b) when you no longer feel the church is healthy or safe

Those two apply to me pretty closely. For years, the main thing I have gotten out of the sermons has been the opportunity to write poetry.

And as for the second. I realised that was true some time ago when I began to worry about what they were teaching my children in Sunday School.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A couple of years back we changed church, which is the first time I've done that for any reason other than moving to the other end of the country. We left the church we'd both fairly recently become members of, where we were married, where the wee man was baptised, where I'd preached and been active in assisting leading worship etc. We left a church where we were very happy with the worship, where we had friends and some fellowship, where we had no real theological issues with the practice and preaching. We left because there was no real provision for kids during the morning worship, and the wee man was declaring "I don't want to go to church".

So, we went to another church in the same denomination a good 20 minute drive away where we knew they had lots of kids and a large Sunday School. We stuck it out for 9 months or so. Long enough for the wee lass to be baptised there. Long enough for me to be invited into the pulpit. Long enough to find that actually having a Sunday School doesn't help much when you're still taking the kids out and so not participating in worship. Long enough to decide that the worship was generally "child appropriate", even after the kids had gone out, and we weren't getting the depth of worship and preaching we wanted. Long enough to find that a 20 minute drive excluded you from practically any participation in the life of the church other than Sunday morning. But, ultimately finding that the children were excluded from Communion and that that was too much.

So, we're now back where we started. Resigned to the fact that if the kids don't want to sit through a service which doesn't specifically accomodate them then one of us has to take them out to the lounge with toys (and service piped through, so at least we sometimes get the chance to hear what's said). Having decided that there's no such thing as a perfect church, we're making a go of the one we're in. I even got myself elected as an Elder. And, they're stupid enough to invite me into the pulpit and (once I've completed a wee training course in a couple of weeks) preside at Communion.

So, in summary - we thought that the lack of specific provision for children in worship was an adequate reason to leave church. Only to find that actually it wasn't. And, then to find that a church excluding people from Communion (especially when each Communion Sunday they used words like "this table is for all who love, or seek to love, the Lord Jesus Christ") was just something we didn't want.

[ 24. January 2011, 09:59: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

"Here I stand. I can do no other".

That sounds tough, Wood. I suspect there are many "adequate reasons" but at the heart of most of them will be an irreconcilable conflict of values. Reconciliation in that context also includes being able to live with differences.

Nonconformists like me have normally had some experience this territory. My wife and I have only been leavers once, but we've been stayers on a number of occasions.

The only general lesson I learned both from my own leaving and the leaving of others was that it is generally better to leave, rather than stay and undermine. Undermining tends to undermine us as well.

There is an irregular verb involved.

"This church accepts a lot of diversity but there are limits.

You do not realise that my criticism is meant to be constructive.

They have always had problems with authority."

Spend some time in the midst of some of that, particularly if you see real hurt being caused to people you know and respect, and the thought which rises almost unbidden is "I don't need this".

Taking the long view, one of the things I have learned is that distance can provide a calmer perspective. Even if, on reflection, the reason for leaving seems less of an imperative than it did at the time (when the wounds were fresh).

Another thing is that it better not to discuss the specifics too much with folks outside the situation. A phrase like "differences of outlook and vision" covers a multitude of sins.

Perhaps finally, whatever the reason, there will be folks who will be sad at your leaving, will want to express regrets and say thanks. Avoiding a hypocritical farewell event is not easy, but on the whole it is best to try and leave with as much goodwill as possible preserved.

I'm not sure if these further generalities are of any help or in any way novel. If not for you, maybe for some others?

(xposted with Alan C and Eutychus)

[ 24. January 2011, 10:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, in summary - we thought that the lack of specific provision for children in worship was an adequate reason to leave church. Only to find that actually it wasn't.

That's a really really insightful point.

I'm sitting on this thread, aren't I? I'll stop now for a bit.

[ 24. January 2011, 09:59: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

Just to be clear, Wood, are you talking about leaving a church, as in the First Church of Springfield, or leaving The Church, as in the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"Here I stand. I can do no other".

Yes.

quote:

The only general lesson I learned both from my own leaving and the leaving of others was that it is generally better to leave, rather than stay and undermine. Undermining tends to undermine us as well.

There is an irregular verb involved.

"This church accepts a lot of diversity but there are limits.

You do not realise that my criticism is meant to be constructive.

They have always had problems with authority."

Spend some time in the midst of some of that, particularly if you see real hurt being caused to people you know and respect, and the thought which rises almost unbidden is "I don't need this".

I don't know if I've been an undermining force, but I think - no, I'm pretty certain - that I've long been considered that way. Years ago, I got run out of leading the student work for pretty much that reason. But that wasn't a reason not to stay. Then.

quote:

Another thing is that it better not to discuss the specifics too much with folks outside the situation. A phrase like "differences of outlook and vision" covers a multitude of sins.

Yes.

quote:
Perhaps finally, whatever the reason, there will be folks who will be sad at your leaving, will want to express regrets and say thanks. Avoiding a hypocritical farewell event is not easy, but on the whole it is best to try and leave with as much goodwill as possible preserved.

Currently, I'm getting myself taken off rotas and trying to figure out how to approach the actual not going anymore part.

I mean, I don't want it to be a production. I want it to be quiet. If people go, "Where's the Woods gone?" one week, that's cool. If anyone rings up, well, it's the truth, within reason. A difference of vision and that.

But do I write a letter. A quick, terse, formal note saying "sorry, we've been around for ages but we can't come anymore - feel free to update the membership list accordingly"? I really don't want to write a huge grievance-airing letter. It won't solve anything.

quote:
I'm not sure if these further generalities are of any help or in any way novel. If not for you, maybe for some others?

I think they are.

[ 24. January 2011, 10:07: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by five:
Just to be clear, Wood, are you talking about leaving a church, as in the First Church of Springfield, or leaving The Church, as in the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?

A congregation.

But since I've been an English Baptist (in Wales the "English" makes a difference) which is a congregational denomination, that's not a distinction that matters.

But. It's a fair point. I'm talking about congregations here, not about whole denominational groupings. I think that's a very different question.

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

Well, it seems from what you wrote that this isn't a sort of "how dare they!" in a huff kind of church shopping/hopping that is all about the Woods finding somewhere in their image rather than in God's image. (Which is my own personal bugbear about people who are church hopping - it tends to be a one note rebellion, and they keep hopping on one note. Maybe not the same note, but one note.) You say there's a final straw, but that's not the same thing by any measure. You still seem a big agonised about it, even though you've already decided to go. That indicates to me that this isn't something you've taken flippantly. Your thought process seems sound, and I think the advice from Paul is a good idea.

It'll be tough, but if your soul screams so loudly, follow it. Investigate whether there is another church in your denomination that doesn't have these problems. Not to pick on the Baptists (ever, but particularly as you're one) but I don't think that any one in the Baptists would criticize you for leaving Southborogh Baptist. Most, I feel, would laud you for it. I'm sure this is not as extreme a congregation, but again, finding another one is not the worst thing you can do. Particualrly if you feel your children are at risk of harm.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

You leave when there is no good reason to stay.

I finally left my parish in 2010 after 26 years. I'd quit singing there 18 months perviously and then attended another Mass for 18 months. It took 6 months for me to bite the bullet and admit to myself that there was no good reason to stay.

Nothing personal, mind. Just time to move on.

m

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by five:
Well, it seems from what you wrote that this isn't a sort of "how dare they!" in a huff kind of church shopping/hopping that is all about the Woods finding somewhere in their image rather than in God's image. (Which is my own personal bugbear about people who are church hopping - it tends to be a one note rebellion, and they keep hopping on one note. Maybe not the same note, but one note.)

Yeah, like I said, I'd hate it to be that. So I hope that's the case. I mean, that's part of the reason I'm struggling with how to handle the formalities. I could say why and — well, would it do any good or make any difference? Would it change anything about how we are viewed? No. I don't think it will.

But at the same time, I cannot just go without a word. I owe them more than that.

quote:
Investigate whether there is another church in your denomination that doesn't have these problems.

Honestly, I think that in the vicinity it's not going to happen.

So we're starting with churches in walking distance. We're going to join the Anglicans for a bit.

Some of the people who posted here years ago when I got my 7,000 posts would find that ironic.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Hi Wood,

Long time!

I have left 2 congregations.

The first time I moved city. So it was nice and easy. I just chose not to go to the NFI church in the new place. The issues were general and doctrinal but not pastoral or personal.

The second time was more difficult. I was in a position of some responsibility and had significant pastoral and practical concerns. In particular questions about parental models of ministry within certain strands of Evangelicalism.

There I feel I left it too long. Tried to dialogue. Tried to leave on the right note. I am not sure that it did any good.

Once the leadership of a congregation know you disagree with them on a fairly significant pastoral issue, especially if you are in some sense a weighty respected member of the congregation, it is very hard for them not to feel threatened and confused. However respected you are it is hard to remain.

Wherever you go you will probably face the same issue again. I still feel uncomfortable with certain models of leadership. But the CofE has a breadth that encourages us to work together despite significant differences.

A good leadership team will recognise that some differences necessitate a parting of the ways however much you feel you should 'be one'. But there is no easy way around it.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
We're going to join the Anglicans for a bit.

Some of the people who posted here years ago when I got my 7,000 posts would find that ironic.

Now you mentioned it......

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

So we're starting with churches in walking distance. We're going to join the Anglicans for a bit.

Some of the people who posted here years ago when I got my 7,000 posts would find that ironic.

(Looks other way. Whistles.)

That is exactly what I did. And now look at me.

I will remember you in my prayers and the PM box is open.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
We're going to join the Anglicans for a bit.

Some of the people who posted here years ago when I got my 7,000 posts would find that ironic.
Now you mentioned it......

I feel like a whipper-snapper with my May 2001 registration. Unlike you April oldies!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
We're going to join the Anglicans for a bit.

Some of the people who posted here years ago when I got my 7,000 posts would find that ironic.
Now you mentioned it......

Oh, get you, Papist-pants.

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Hi Wood,

Long time!

Aaaages.

quote:

There I feel I left it too long. Tried to dialogue. Tried to leave on the right note. I am not sure that it did any good.

Once the leadership of a congregation know you disagree with them on a fairly significant pastoral issue, especially if you are in some sense a weighty respected member of the congregation, it is very hard for them not to feel threatened and confused. However respected you are it is hard to remain.[/qb]

Yes. This.

And after a while you stop being respected.

quote:
Wherever you go you will probably face the same issue again. I still feel uncomfortable with certain models of leadership. But the CofE has a breadth that encourages us to work together despite significant differences.

A good leadership team will recognise that some differences necessitate a parting of the ways however much you feel you should 'be one'. But there is no easy way around it.

I understand this. The local Anglican church is in many ways a compromise. Were it just me, I'd be heading up to the URC, where the minister is a mate. But we've got the kids to think of too.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

I wouldn't write the letter. respond honestly if asked, but otherwise keep it minimal. I took myself off reading rotas and just quit going. I get asked occasionally to come back and politely decline. No one has ever asked me why I left. I almost wish they would, but I don't think they want to know.

and for me - I left when the church could not support me when my family dissolved and I was diagnosed with MS. I needed them the most and they turned away. but it wasn't like a punishment - I just had to prioritize everything in my life and the church couldn't come before everything else, not when it hurt to go.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

My experience - if you can walk out of a church where you've been in regular attendance for some time, and no one notices or cares that you're gone, you probably did right to leave.

In this same church, a young single guy got ticked off and didn't turn up for about six weeks. When he decided to come back, he confronted the pastor: "If a young family with children had done what I did, you would have phoned, wouldn't you?" The pastor admitted that he would.

No one in the leadership seemed to notice when I stopped coming either.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
My experience - if you can walk out of a church where you've been in regular attendance for some time, and no one notices or cares that you're gone, you probably did right to leave.

In this same church, a young single guy got ticked off and didn't turn up for about six weeks. When he decided to come back, he confronted the pastor: "If a young family with children had done what I did, you would have phoned, wouldn't you?" The pastor admitted that he would.

No one in the leadership seemed to notice when I stopped coming either.

This is a good point. I absolutely agree. I think that it's a pointer that you're not part of the community.

I think that they're going to miss us. I'm already dreading the phone calls.

[ 24. January 2011, 11:08: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I left one church about 10 years ago when I found the minister would not cross the road to the hospital to bring me Christmas communion. I had just undergone surgery for cancer 2 days prior to Christmas and the minister told the nurse who rang him that it wasn't his job and he was too busy. This was despite the fact that I was on Parish Council and sang in the choir. I'm afraid that a church that has no love for its people is a place to leave quick smart. I have found a much happier place since where everyone cares for each other. Life is too short to stay where you or your family and friends are unwelcome.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I think that they're going to miss us. I'm already dreading the phone calls.

Can't you get them to allege you're demonised? IME, that dries up the calls pretty good...

On a more serious note, leaving anything you've put a lot into is a wrench, and calculating whether it's worth it is a bit like deciding whether to pour even more money into repairing your old car because of all the money you've already poured into it, or start over.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I'm struggling with how to handle the formalities. I could say why and — well, would it do any good or make any difference? Would it change anything about how we are viewed? No. I don't think it will.

But at the same time, I cannot just go without a word. I owe them more than that.

In our case it was easier. We had a chat with the minister so he knew a) why we were going and b) that we weren't quitting church entirely. And, we told several other members of the congregation we were going and why, and were universally supported in our decision as the church was clearly failing to do anything with kids - and that wasn't going to change any time soon.

We never really went through that process coming back, we just walked to our old church one Sunday morning rather than get in the car for the drive down the hill. Staying in the same denomination means that we have met people from the other church on occasion so they know where we are. I've never really told them my views on their issues with Communion - mainly because we were painfully aware that there were people (and, we didn't know who) objecting to offering Communion to some baptised members of the church and that it was a very sore point within that congregation. Having decided to get out there was no point potentially aggravating that from the outside.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The local Anglican church is in many ways a compromise. Were it just me, I'd be heading up to the URC, where the minister is a mate. But we've got the kids to think of too.

What's wrong with the URC then?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The local Anglican church is in many ways a compromise. Were it just me, I'd be heading up to the URC, where the minister is a mate. But we've got the kids to think of too.
What's wrong with the URC then?

No kids' provision. Tracy would go insane. Basically.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

There are many reasons for leaving a church, some good, some not so good.

Sometimes you just feel impelled to leave. Sometimes you need time in the wilderness. The wilderness is an ambiguous place: you could (metaphorically) be devoured by lions (or worse).

The wilderness is also the place you could meet God.

Many people need wilderness time.

It could be the best thing that ever happened to some. When they come out of it it could be to (literally and metaphorically) a new place.

[ 24. January 2011, 11:54: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Part of the difficulty with the decision, by the way, has been the knowledge that by leaving we directly make the pastors' lives more difficult, because their wages are paid from the tithes-n-offerings and every offering that's gone is another little reason the salaries get more difficult to pay.

Not a decision you take lightly.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The local Anglican church is in many ways a compromise. Were it just me, I'd be heading up to the URC, where the minister is a mate. But we've got the kids to think of too.
What's wrong with the URC then?
No kids' provision. Tracy would go insane. Basically.

Aye, that sounds familiar. Which is why we moved from one URC to another ... only to find that (for us) kids' provision wasn't all that important after all.

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

I was at my previous church for decades and I still haven't entirely finished with that community. It is the consequence of only one change of vicar in 45 years - unusual in modern times. In a nutshell, the previous vicar changed nothing and things got into a time warp. The present vicar changed everything and threw out the baby with the bathwater, so that my preferred happy medium did not happen.

I changed churches gradually; in the first instance it was once a month to avoid a new service. I gradually increased my attendance at my 'new' church and gradually reduced it at my 'old' church.

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
You leave when there is no good reason to stay.

This subject came up a week or so back when talking to a friend of mine who usually has something reasonable to say about things-church. The advice she would give to someone thinking about whether to stay or go was "go if you are called to be somewhere else, but if you don't feel called to be somewhere else then God may be calling you to stay".
I'm not sure the case she was thinking of was where someone was getting hurt by coming to church though - I think it was someone who was throwing their toys out of the pram.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

(Host Muse)

I'm toying with exploring "All Saints" as a more appropriate home, but, as long as Wood doesn't mind, there is probably something to be said for giving his general question a personal and specific background.

(/Host Muse)

Wood's comment on being both a youth worker and perceived as an underminer applied to me once. I think the two relate. Most young people brought up in our churches have got a pretty good nose for BS. The hidden agenda is often that the church youth workers are expected to "civilise and socialise"; most youthworkers, being in the main radical people, find it hard to avoid some challenge to the norms! In short, youthwork and belief in some kind of reform agenda, often an uncomfortable one, are often found together. So we are often perceived as threats to the status quo. And if there are powerful leadership figures who are wedded to the status quo, see it as "sound", then it is quite easy for youthworkers to get a reputation for being disturbers of the peace, unsound, trouble, underminers. One of the ironies here is that many nonconformists churches have lost their understanding of our historical connections to Dissent.

The problem is that if you are an instinctive reformer and can (via e.g. youthwork) see good arguments for reform, the continued frustration of those instincts can make the path of real undermining far too tempting. The temptation is a lot easier to fall into if folks thing you already are a bit unsound, a bit of an underminer. "I might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb".

IME, unless you have folks in church leadership who really understand not just the difficulties of this work, but also the creative possibilities for good which lie at the heart of it, the scope for misunderstanding folks involved in it is very great. In itself, a church environment which is indifferent to (or pays lip service only to) youth work may not in itself be an adequate reason to leave, but it may be a sign of a different disease; fear of change and fear of the different.

The seven last words of the church are

We've. Never. Done. It. This. Way. Before.

Most youthworkers (active or retired) would say that.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Not a decision you take lightly.

The example given in the OP is very obviously of a decision not taken lightly - 16 years in one church is certainly not church-hopping, many many people never last that long in one place. And it is obvious that a huge amount of thinking and soul-searching has gone on in order to arrive at such a stage.

In our case, it was six years, but ultimately your own soul (inner distress at every service) and your own children* (relaying back to me the intolerant attitudes they were picking up from sermons, prayers, etc) end up telling you something very obvious.

*children are such copiers - I was able to use past experience and understanding to filter out intolerance, and just enjoy the social side of the church which was very good; they were too young to do so and took everything they heard at face value.

We remained in the same denomination, but changed to a more open, accepting church where I trusted the clergy and the children's leaders to fill their heads and minds with positive experiences of the love of God, which wouldn't clash with the way we were bringing them up at home. It is possible to find such churches, even if you have to look a while first.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(Host Muse)

I'm toying with exploring "All Saints" as a more appropriate home, but, as long as Wood doesn't mind, there is probably something to be said for giving his general question a personal and specific background.

(/Host Muse)

I'm cool with it. Do what you have to, old chap.

quote:

The seven last words of the church are

We've. Never. Done. It. This. Way. Before.

Most youthworkers (active or retired) would say that.

Yeah.

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In our case, it was six years, but ultimately your own soul (inner distress at every service) and your own children* (relaying back to me the intolerant attitudes they were picking up from sermons, prayers, etc) end up telling you something very obvious.

*children are such copiers - I was able to use past experience and understanding to filter out intolerance, and just enjoy the social side of the church which was very good; they were too young to do so and took everything they heard at face value.

Yes. This is so important. You can put up with a lot more as an adult. But kids... they listen to authority figures. In some ways, what they're getting is more important that what the adults are.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

There are two churches I left because I wasn't happy with them. Here are the reasons:

The first church I left was because the people running the children's holiday club were saying that they wanted to make a rule that children with disabilities and special needs/behavioural issues couldn't attend, because they were too much trouble and preventing the other 'normal' children from learning about God. This made me very angry, even though I don't have any children myself - probably because I would have fallen into that category when I was a child, so I took it personally. I feel strongly that people with disabilities should be included, and that people should make the effort to learn to adapt to people who are different. So anyway, I expressed my anger, and I suggested ways to make it easier for the people running the holiday club to be more inclusive, such as having people working one-to-one with difficult children, and I offered to do that myself. But to no avail. So I left that church, having attended for four years, because I didn't want to be part of a church that didn't welcome children with disabilities.
The second church I left was for several reasons. I only had attended a few months - I had moved house - and it wasn't the kind of church I normally attend. I don't mind this in theory, but I didn't agree with some of the teaching. There was a woman in the congregation with depression, and they prayed for her healing, but because she didn't get healed they thought she was letting the devil into her life, and they 'rebuked' her for this, which of course didn't help her depression. This made me feel angry on her behalf. I went to a fellowship group, and then when they were at my house I felt a bit uncomfortable because they thought I had brought a curse onto my house because of my yoga video and my sci-fi books. And also, I felt physically uncomfortable in the services because they played the music so loud that I couldn't focus, and the lighting gave me a headache. So all these reasons made me leave that church.

I don't know if those are considered adequate reasons, but they were my reasons. When I attend a church, I feel strongly about the way the people in the church treat each other, how they treat newcomers, and how they treat people with disabilities and differences.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Hi Wood -

Just one tiny piece of advice here. As Chorister has said, it's obvious you're not a church-hopper. But try and find a diplomatic way of letting your new pastor know you're not a church-hopper. I remember working at one church where we seemed to get a lot of refugees from others. We always faced the situation with some dread, because in among those who were genuinely looking for a new home, there were also many who went from church to church, never settling and in fact disrupting wherever they went. It would've been nice to know who was who before they started making a mess!

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

If there's a way to do that, that would be good. But I think it is hard to do effectively, on the grounds that as soon as someone tells you that "Oh, I'm not a church hopper" the weary reaction of the seen it many times church leader is "Oh, dear, they think they have to defend themselves already. Church hopper."

As someone who hasn't changed churches apart from moving, I'm not really sure if there's an interview process. We just always started turning up at mass and after a couple of weeks people would usually be introducing themselves. We were never asked to justify why we were there or why we had left. Your mileage may vary, though personally I'd be a bit suspect of a church that started questioning me as to the precise reasons why I'd left my last one!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by five:
Your mileage may vary, though personally I'd be a bit suspect of a church that started questioning me as to the precise reasons why I'd left my last one!

Honestly, I think I agree. I think that in the long run it'd be better to be a gormless pew-filler for a bit.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

We've had negative experiences with church-hoppers in our congregation too. In general they're very ANGRY people who have a constant need to fuel their anger within a church context...so when they arrive all they want to do is trash-talk their previous congregation...but then when that finally wears itself out they start looking for reasons to become angry with our congregation.

I don't believe in "church shopping," and don't take leaving a congregation lightly. In fact, there were some times when I became highly disenchanted with my current congregation (over matters of worship and religious formation) to the point where I began toying with the idea of switching my affiliation to another congregation in the same denomination (one that's actually closer to where I live). In the end it was the relationships that kept me attached. And since then I've assumed some responsibilities in the congregation that help me see how and why it runs from an entirely new perspective. (Bottom line: I am waaaay higher up the candle than is my congregation, and I was feeling dissatisfied with my experience of worship, along with a dearth of opportunities for spiritual formation.)

When would I cut loose from my present congregation? Hmmm. I suppose some scenarios might be:

a new pastor with glaringly off-the-wall views -- say a cheerful atheist who approaches religion as therapy for the ignorant masses, or a crypto-Southern Baptist trying to insinuate that particular theology/praxis into our Lutheran congregation

our church no longer being accepting of LGBT folks

a general unraveling/internal nervous breakdown of the congregation (been there/done that) that creates a kind of organizational and spiritual chaoes that in turn makes worship and fellowship increasingly difficult to achieve

I think those would be deal-breakers for me.

And it would be sad -- like a divorce -- although I know that I have ELCA and TEC alternatives within driving distance.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The second church I left was for several reasons. I only had attended a few months - I had moved house - and it wasn't the kind of church I normally attend.

FWIW, I wouldn't actually call that leaving a church. Rather, that's finding that the first church you try isn't the right one. When I moved up here, the first church I tried was clearly not the one for me after just one service - it was bad enough that the notices said there was coffee in the hall, but no one bothered to tell me where I'd find the hall, but the preacher made it abundantely clear that failure to accept that the earth was created in 6 days within the last 10,000 years resulted in a belief set that could only marginally be called Christian. For most people, it'll be several weeks or more before they can really judge which church they're going to join, maybe a year. And, until you join a church you can't leave it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If it became evangelical
if the eucharist wasn't the central act of worship
if it was homophobic
if it rejected the ordained ministry of women

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

Woo! The paddock is open!

Seriously, I feel for you, Wood. It's a hard cold thing to realize that you need to exile yourself from a community in which you were heavily invested. Even when it's necessary for your spiritual life, exile sucks and prompts some grieving.

I'm not sure writing a letter to the pastor or the church is the best idea, though. What would the effects be? Would an unloving community take a long hard look at themselves and decide to become more accepting? Highly unlikely. By all means, write it down for your own clarity and peace of mind; write a journal, a blog, a private letter, but don't send it. If you send it, the most likely effect (sorry to say) would be self-justification on the part of the pastor or church, and finding fault with you.

I've been a wanderer myself, and have learned some valuable things while in the wilderness. Hope you notice the ravens and bread along the way.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

On "what is a valid reason to leave" -

A friend told me he is looking for a new church because "five years in this church and no one knows my name." He's been on committees etc but it's a church run by and for the group who were born there, outsiders are ignored or resented, alas not too unusual in older dwindling churches.

When you move to a city and try a church and no matter how much you do no one speaks to you at coffee beyond a quick "hello" as they turn to friends, your suggestions and offers to help are ignored, how long before you say "this isn't working, this church does not want me" and move? He said no other church he's been in was like that.

Another friend changed church after just 3 or 4 months. He is a career music teacher, decided to start going to church again, went to the denomination of his youth expecting to volunteer help with either children's choir (which had folded) or handbell choir (which needed a new leader). But the music director (who is famous for running off competent musicians) forbade this guy to do anything musical except sing in the choir. My friend said nuts to that and is now at a different church where he has started both a children's choir and a handbell choir. (The handbell set was sitting unused in the church storage room.)

I suppose one could argue that he should have stayed because the choir need male voices, but he has so much more to offer than that.

I suppose both friends could be told "stay, wait a few years, maybe later things will get better." But when you've already waited 5 years, how long do you wait? Especially when you are over 70, there isn't an indefinite later, whatever you are going to do or contribute is now or very likely never.

It could be different for someone attending a church they grew up in and have lots of memories of warm experiences, the emotional ties to that particular church community or building might be strong enough, a period of being ignored or rejected is insignificant in the framework of decades of warmth and service.

[ 24. January 2011, 15:30: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I left my last church about two years ago. I 'softly and silently vanished away' myself, just kind of tapered off my attendance. I'd go one week, and then it'd take me a few more weeks to get the energy to return, until finally I just gave up altogether and didn't go to church for six months or so.

What lead me to break up with my last church was unrealistic expectations and divergent goals. That church expected me to devote large amounts of time and financial resources, beyond the amounts I had, and expected me to be able to devote these resources at the drop of a hat, and 'no' was not an acceptable answer.

Dealing with this situation actually made me physically ill from the stress. So I left.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

Wood, I feel for you. We left a church last spring that had been my home for 10+ years and was my wife's church for her whole life. Try to make the best of it. I know it has been helpful for us to find a larger church where we can go and just blend in for a while. After many years of very active service, the respite is welcome. We'll get plugged in soon enough, but I'm not in a hurry for that.

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It would've been nice to know who was who before they started making a mess!

True, but if any newcomer had ever approached me as a church leader and told me they're not one of those trouble-making church hoppers, I'd have decided then and there that this is indeed a trouble-making church hopper.

The best way to let a new church know that you're not a power-grabbing loon is to simply attend quietly for a few months or more, supporting in attendance and giving. Then if you're ready to start being more active after a little while, ask about doing the low-profile jobs that nobody wants to do, like clean toilets, mop floors, weed the garden, or visit the shut-ins. Pretty much anything that requires non-Sunday morning work with zero Sunday morning visibility. The trouble-makers always want to start a new women's group, rewrite the church directory, or plan the next church social function. Anything that gets their names/faces in front of people.

Plus, being a warm body in the pew for a period has the added benefit of allowing an easier escape if the new church just doesn't fit.

Posted by chalky (# 143) on :

Do you have to charge over to another right away? Maybe you do. But you could use Sunday as a Day of Rest for a while, if you wanted...

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I mean, I don't want it to be a production. I want it to be quiet. If people go, "Where's the Woods gone?" one week, that's cool. If anyone rings up, well, it's the truth, within reason. A difference of vision and that.

But do I write a letter. A quick, terse, formal note saying "sorry, we've been around for ages but we can't come anymore - feel free to update the membership list accordingly"? I really don't want to write a huge grievance-airing letter. It won't solve anything.

So to the art of breaking up... (LutheranChik described it as sad like divorce, not far wide of the mark, I think). The difficulty with trying to do it quietly is that there are a lot of people who will either be affected and need to communicate, or who will have things to say (supportively and constructively or otherwise!).

If you look at the whole christian Thing as attempting to repair the damage you see, and to do your best to minimise the damage you do, there are some contexts in which both parties are probably better off parted. This should not be an easy thing (which is why it isn't!) but as Barnabas62 said in that very wise post, staying can be a damage-causing option and it really sounds like in this case it would be. Sometimes living 'at peace with everyone, as far as it depends on you' (which is from somewhere in the bible and i like it), means making a break which might never make sense to those looking on and may well be challenged or not understood by those being left.

I think if you can stomach it and be a bit creative, leave in a way which means you can turn up for the odd special occasion and people will go 'how very lovely to see you, Wood people' rather than 'never darken our doors again, you dark lords of evil'. They will cope without you on a Sunday, it's the friendship stuff that is worth sticking to. Realise you will have to make more additional effort than you anticipate to keep in touch with the people you love and want to keep in touch with!

Firm, fair and honest is the best thing - and 'sufficiently open' if that makes sense; I don't think there's any harm in honesty as your friends should know 'why' and can see it in context because they know you AND the church and will understand the mismatch. It's also OK IMO to mention the other times that have made you ponder, like having to give up certain responsibilities; it's not one sided as from what you've said above it sounds like there are things you have been encouraged not to express in a leadership kind of context.

Regarding your original question, by the way (!), that would do it for me - people being silenced?! Or...encouraged strongly to keep their theological views to themselves? no no noooooooo. At the very least, alarm bells. There can be ok reasons but there rarely are.

On a practical note I would suggest making your friends aware of the decision, and the reasons if they want or need to ask, and also having a chat with those in charge - if you can stay friends with any that you really like, or feel that they wish you well, you will have left brilliantly. It is not really in their interests to 'keep you' if your convictions differ significantly from theirs and you might find they let you go with some grace; if they don't, that is sad, but give them the chance, I think. A letter? Maybe, whatever gives them the best shot at letting you part friends.

I have never left a church as an adult but I have been at the sharp end of other people leaving, in our case many have either returned or shown up to the better parties, and maybe it is the church concerned but it is usually good to see them! In my younger days I left my parents church at 14 to go to one which I preferred (better youth stuff going on), nobody minded at all. At 16 I went to another that was probably more up my street at the time (the evangelical days, yes really!! Come on, it was 20 years ago) then left for Uni - moved on very significantly but still very much value my time from my 16-19 congregation, partly cos experiences there taught me why I did not end up a conservative evangelical but why I know they are good people trying to do the right thing. Had I stayed in that town and not moved away think I would have left, and hopefully stayed friends - although being somewhere 16 years with one's growing family is very, very different to being somewhere for a few years in your late teens so I'm not saying that will be easily possible in your case... but maybe have a go.

Also, it is a VERY big deal to you now as it is (a) a big change and (b) something you sort of feel is a bit wrong on principle - so it is bound to smart for a time, but in the long run you will keep the friends you have and make new ones. Which is going to be nicer. Yay. (But not yet. Boooo).

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I've twice left a congregation for reasons other than moving town. The first was in Cambridge and was because I'd realised I was involved with 5 different Christian communities (2 college chapels, MethSoc, and two churches) and that this was silly and so I dropped one of the churches. But in other circumstances I could have been happy there and indeed went there yesterday because their service time was more convenient than the one that became my regular!

The second time was more dramatic. My parents had moved while I was at uni and started going to a church when I visited them. In those days that church had a youngish vicar and I was made to feel welcome on my periodic visits. I then moved to live with parents for financial reasons (fourth year PhD!). By then the youngish vicar had moved on and there was a new vicar. I turned up fairly frequently (though for once not every week as I was back in Cambridge about every three weeks) from February. By September I had not exchanged more than a few words with the vicar. I then started an evening course in Hebrew taught (co-incidentally) by the vicar. I mentioned that one reason for doing it was thinking about ordination. No response from him. But I was sticking with the church and indeed had joined the choir.

At the end of January, he licensed new chalice assistants at Matins and preached a sermon ruling out transubstantiation and upholding the 39 articles in a very low interpretation. Something snapped and if I hadn't been in the choir I might well have left. I just knew I couldn't go back. It wasn't just the theological difference exposed by the sermon, but also the fact that I'd've like to have known about the opportunity to become a chalice assistant -- not unreasonable in someone considering ordination. It just underlined the fact I wasn't that involved and couldn't see how to become more involved. The following week I went to another church where a couple of friends went and ended up serving and reading and within a month was licensed to take the chalice!

In both cases, it was as much about what was good for my spiritual development at that point in time as the churches in question.

Carys

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

The best thing we ever did when we joined a new church was not to diss the old vicar to the new vicar. The best thing the new vicar did was to leave us alone to find our way and settle in without hassling us about what went wrong.

Writing a letter does make you feel temporarily better, but then, if you get a very hurtful reply, you have to deal with that on top of everything else you're already dealing with. Perhaps leaving in an open-ended way, letting your old minister know that you need time to sort out confused feelings, is a kinder way of exiting than saying, 'Right, I've had enough - I'm off!' I should have told that advice to myself several years ago as well....

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

Carys brings up a point I'd like to clarify. If a student at a local university was considering ordination, I'd not consider them to be a trouble-maker for asking to be come involved in highly visible activities after a very short attendance period. It would be very much in line with persuing ordination and should be encouraged by the local church. Still, even they can scrub a toilet on a Saturday night.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I've left a church twice (other than the job frequently moving me to new cities), both in this little town.

One changed theology to "women must live under the authority of a man and can't be in any kind of leadership" and kicked women off all committees. I can't thrive emotionally in an environment that belittles women, so I left that church but I am still in one of their Bible study group, and just skip the times they get into this topic.

The other church I was working on more and more projects and committees and the more I did the more I was praised for "really good work" but simultaneously scolded for "not doing enough around here." At 20 hours a week the scoldings became more intense. I left. I have visited a few times since but still feel tense when I walk in the building because of all the scolding for supposedly not doing enough. (One friend recently explained, "you were unemployed, you had no excuse for not being here every day.")

Now I attend a church with female clergy and I decide how much I am willing to do, and "just say no" to the frequent requests to take on another project (or another expense). I guess churches are always in need of more help.

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

I left a church once, not long after I joined the Ship. I hadn't been there as a regular congregant for more than a few months, but I had been part of its community for a long time before that. Despite being in many people's eyes a newcomer, I found it very hard to leave, and I kept wondering whether I was supposed to stay and be part of the solution rather than wash my hands of the place.

My tipping point issue was listening to several church members gossiping about a group of children who had just come in. These weren't the children (or grandchildren) of a church member, but a group of waifs and strays who had started to show up of their own accord. I could not bear knowing that the church membership was judgemental about the few people who were willing to cross the threshold of what was beginning to be a dying church. I didn't write a letter, but I did make an appointment with an older member of the congregation to explain what was wrong and why I couldn't come back. He graciously encouraged me to go and find a place where I belonged. Which I did, but not without a couple of years where the only places of belonging I had were the Ship and a house group that wanted to be a church plant.

Last year, a very active member of my own church left. She wrote a letter to the elders, received by each one of us, to tell us that she was leaving. I don't think it explained why. That was saved for more direct conversations with those people who got in touch to ask. Her experience leaving seemed like a bereavement. For a while, maybe even still, no other church could be the place where she could settle instead. That was my experience too, which is why I ended up in some quirky Christian settings instead.

There's a book called A Churchless Faith by Alan Jamieson, which is about a decade old now, but explores what it means to leave a charismatic or evangelical church and tells the stories of some of the research subjects who did so. You might find it interesting, I did.

'frin

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

Thanks you, Wood, for this thread! This is the kind of thread I was hoping the one I started would become.

As a pastor, I would appreciate an honest letter (not a grievance-airing one) about why. Too often people are just too polite to say, but how can a pastor address what s/he doesn't get to know? You have an ideological reason to leave and you could say that neither tersely nor being overly blubbery.

One that got to me was a couple who left because they saw "no potential for growth" in the congregation. They also expressed disapproval of how the same people seemed to have all the offices, just all changed around every year. I responded, "Stan (not his real name), you've been nominated for an office every year since I've been here and you've said no every time." They left on good terms, actually, as they really are a nice couple and I wish them well, but I confess that I don't completely understand their reasons for leaving. Still, I very much appreciate their being so forthright and frank!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

People reading 'A Churchless Faith' might also be interested in the sequel, 'Church Leavers: Faith journeys five years on' (Jamieson, McIntosh, Thompson).

My response was to immediately get involved in another church (having sussed a few out while still wrestling with deciding to finally leave the old one) - in our case this was because we had young children who enjoyed singing and, given that they were both boys with time-limited treble voices, we couldn't afford to dither around. For us, that worked really well, but I guess if you have the time, and no immediate reason to get stuck in, then a period of gentle exploration might be more suitable.

I'm interested in how couples and families make their decisions, compared to individuals who have only themselves to think about. It must be really hard if different members of the family have different ideas. I know several couples where the solution was for the husband to worship in one church and the wife in another!

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

I left one parish because the actions of the priest and the general fuckwittedness of the Parish Council was getting in the way of worshipping God.

Now nicely settled in the next parish over.

Strangely enough late last year I got a letter from the former parish asking for money to make up a budget shortfall. Since that shortfall is approximately twice what I gave, I guess they do miss me. Or at least my money. I often see former parishioners at my new church.

As for the begging letter? I "filed" it.

[one word changes the intent of the sentence often, don't you find?]

[ 24. January 2011, 21:07: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I think about this a lot, not because I'm ever likely to leave my church -- I'm not -- but because many times I wonder how uncomfortable I'd have to be there before I'd consider it.

For me, it would have to be pretty extreme, but that's mainly because denominational identity is very important to me -- I couldn't imagine identifying as any other sort of Christian other than a Seventh-day Adventist -- and there's very little choice in churches of my denomination around here. I live five minutes' walk from my church, have attended it since I was born except for a few years when I lived away from here. I was baptised in this church, married in this church, both my children dedicated there, and have always been active there, usually in youth or children's ministries.

Even though I'm more liberal theologically than 99% of the members there, I've usually felt comfortable and at home, never felt everyone had to agree with me on everything in order for me to be at home there. Lately, the atmosphere has changed a bit. There has been an ultra-conservative fringe in the church for the last 15-20 years but they have been just that, a fringe -- now, with the coming of a new pastor coinciding with new and more conservative leadership of our denomination as a whole, the former "fringe" element is becoming much more central at my home church and I'm the one feeling like I'm on the fringe, and trying to work out how to be gracious and loving about feeling marginalized.

The best example recently of the sort of thing that makes me uncomfortable was at the end of October when our pastor used the pulpit to preach an anti-Hallowe'en sermon and then a singer got up to sing a song he'd written himself about how those who allow their children to go trick or treating are "passing their children through the flames" and "sacrificing them to Satan." There were hearty amens. My husband and another couple of men got up and walked out, but I sat through it.

I have a tremendous sense of loyalty to this church -- it is the church of my parents and grandparents as well as my own; I love the sense of history I have there. I love that there are active children's and youth programs even though I get tired of being the one who puts the majority of effort into running them. There next nearest SDA church is half an hour's drive away and would be far less of a good fit for many reasons.

So for me, leaving is not really an option, and I do believe it's good for me to experience being marginalized, to expose my children to different points of view and discuss how there are different ways of being Christians, and to learn to get along with those who disagree with me, especially now that they tend to be in positions of greater power and influence. I think it's good training in humility and Christian love and all that, but honestly -- if I lived in an area where there were a variety of churches of my denomination, and a more liberal one was reasonably close -- I would seriously consider leaving, despite my longstanding ties to my present congregation.

And I do think that if you leave a church for a specific reason, rather than just drifting away, you should tell the pastor and the board why. Not in an angry way, but I do like the polite letter idea. If policies or practices are driving people away from the church, the leadership should know about that.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
On "what is a valid reason to leave" -

A friend told me he is looking for a new church because "five years in this church and no one knows my name."

Oh God I wish that would happen to me. But I realize my situation is different.

I was talking to a parishioner this morning who left the church for 43 years. Sadly, when she came back, only the face had changed.

But I'm not really helping the thread. I get paid to stay.

[ 25. January 2011, 10:31: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :

It's extraordinarily helpful reading this thread. Thank you, Wood, for starting it.

It's helped me realize that (though I haven't formalized this) I've already left my church, and it probably would be a kindness to them (and me) to say so.

It's also helped me think a bit more clearly through the muddle of guilt, confusion, angst, (and yes, some anger) I feel about leaving a congregation where I've taught church school, led services, begun a new ministry, etc. etc. over the 7-8 years of my involvement. Everyone in my congregation knows my name (even a few people whose names I haven't learned!) . . . but not one of those people has ever asked after me since I stopped attending.

I don't know what that means (maybe that I was a pain in the butt during my sojourn?), but these reflections on others' experience with "moving on" (and why) are very, very helpful.

[ 24. January 2011, 23:56: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Interesting, the originator of this thread and most of the posters on it seem to be what I would call 'church people' i.e. they are people who have left, are considering leaving or have decided to stay at a particular bricks and mortar church. A couple are religious professionals who are motivated to stay and keep bums on seats for financial reasons (amongst others).

It seems to be presumed that, if I leave St Moggs in the Marsh, seemingly for perfectly logical and justifiable reasons (do I really need them [Devil]

?), I will almost immediately end up at St Wilfrid's of the Smoke Stacks or similar, also for perfectly logical and justifiable reasons.

Is this thread then about ' Church choice: the Consumer's Guide. When You Need to Move On When Your Perceived Needs are Not Fulfilled'?

multipara hit on a different note. A deep inner conviction, tested over time, that something just 'wasn't right' and a gradual, guided, I believe, move away to somewhere more appropriate. Divine guidance, mayhap?

PeteC's intuition that his previous place seemed just to want his money is also, to me, confirmation from 'up top'.

God does, indeed, move in mysterious ways. Sometimes reading what He wants needs subtlety.
Perhaps what He wants for me is not my 'church wish list'?

Perhaps I get more, at a much deeper level, from religion than what my Ego wants? [Eek!]

[ 25. January 2011, 00:07: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]

Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :

An adequate reason to leave a church? How about a parish environment so hostile that the doctor of a pregnant member advised her to leave, on the grounds that her health and that of her unborn child were in danger?

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

To have choice! We left the first church because we started a family and they told us the kids were disruptive to the service and there was nothing, no nothing for kids there. It has closed.

We then left the second one 9 years later when they diocese closed it up, or maybe I should say forced closure after appointing a poorly matched rector who just wasn't right for it.

Now we are nearly 15 years in the present church, and are thinking about going. The church is thinking of it's buildings more than the people it seems. The rector is retiring after death of spouse a year ago at 60. I went off the vestry (what we call a parish council here) last Feb. Spouse is on now, but has had such incredible drama and pain from the focus on the past and buildings and other tripe versus the future that even though spouse is chair of the meetings, may need to resign to maintain faith and sanity.

Problem is we just don't have much elsewhere to go. We have so few Anglican parishes, that we'd have to look outside, maybe to Lutherans. The rest of the churches have nearly no connection to identifiable Christianity like United Church or are excessively evangelical-country gospel-clappy.

I almost thought there was a message (though I tend to think this way almost never) when someone talked to me about the parish website and offered to help - I've been doing it since it started maybe 6 years ago. Trouble is I'd have to give up committees outside the parish too.... The best advice we've received is not to make a decision while feelings dominate, wait until we both feel calm, and pray quietly for peace and the right ideas to come. So its back to the rhythyms of phrase of the 'old prayer book' morning and night for a while.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The second church I left was for several reasons. I only had attended a few months - I had moved house - and it wasn't the kind of church I normally attend.
FWIW, I wouldn't actually call that leaving a church. Rather, that's finding that the first church you try isn't the right one.

Yeah, I did wonder about that. Thing is, though, I've moved house so often in my life, that the longest I've attended a church is four years, so a few months does seem quite significant to me. But I realise that's different from a lot of people's experience.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Is this thread then about ' Church choice: the Consumer's Guide. When You Need to Move On When Your Perceived Needs are Not Fulfilled'?

I sometimes have to wonder if other people are actually reading the same thread as I am [Confused]

The thread I've read includes numerous examples of people leaving, or contemplating leaving, church because of what to me seem serious issues rather than just not having perceived needs met. Communion being denied to other people is not IMO about personal needs.

On the other hand, I think perceived personal (or familial) needs become an important issue in deciding what to do after you leave. It takes time to find a church that suits you, and sometimes what is needed is a sabbatical from organised church.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Is this thread then about ' Church choice: the Consumer's Guide. When You Need to Move On When Your Perceived Needs are Not Fulfilled'?

quote:

Perhaps I get more, at a much deeper level, from religion than what my Ego wants?

Absolutely not, in any way, shape or form. I think I made it very clear that I think this attitude is wrong and damaging.

No, it's about the thing that would drive you to make a wrenching decision to leave a commmunity that you have been part of for a good chunk of your life - I haven't really been part of any other church - and it's sort of become about the right thing to do when one makes that decision.

This is so completely divorced from simple consumerism (a word I tend to equate, with my politics and ethics, with "Satanism" anyway) that comments like these kind of border on satire.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Is this thread then about ' Church choice: the Consumer's Guide. When You Need to Move On When Your Perceived Needs are Not Fulfilled'?
I sometimes have to wonder if other people are actually reading the same thread as I am

The thread I've read includes numerous examples of people leaving, or contemplating leaving, church because of what to me seem serious issues rather than just not having perceived needs met. Communion being denied to other people is not IMO about personal needs.

Thank you, Alan.

Look, I didn't want to spell it out, but: I'm not gay. I have friends — Christian friends — who are gay. Could my gay friends be part of my church and truthfully be themselves? No, they could not.

I owe it to them not to be part of that community. After all the shit I've been through, all the hurt I've endured, the being silenced and demoted and marginalised and the gossip and all that over the last seven or eight years, the knowledge that I was considered suspect because of my friendship with a somewhat more progressive Methodist minister, this is the only thing that has actually made me get up and leave.

Because a wrong is being done — a sin, a terrible sin. And I will not be part of it, and I will not have my children be taught to perpetuate it.

And if it turns out that I am wrong, and I am somehow permitting sin to happen and unable to see the plank in my own eye, then I owe it to the church to leave because I am damaging the church by staying and I need to be spat out like that congregation in Laodicea they like talking about so much at my church.

Someone is being harmed by my staying, and I have to go.

Look. I deliberately didn't spell out the issue because I don't want this thread to be about that. I wanted it to be about reasons to leave a church, valid reasons, and what constitutes a valid reason. That's all.

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :

I changed churches (and denominations) after many years and a lot of heart-searching. Significant and growing differences in theology, worship, views on inclusion, and models of church life were some of the reasons. One of the best pieces of advice I received at the time was to try if possible to move positively towards something new rather than just away from something that for whatever reason, was no longer viable. Dealing with some anger about some of the reasons for leaving was important too; sometimes there are very good reasons for feeling angry about things that have happened in a church but holding onto that hurts only oneself in the long run. Acknowledging any anger and then letting it go takes time but can be an important part of making a positive move.

For me it was important to achieve a positive transition, seeking to maintain friendships and contacts. This involved a friendly letter not dwelling too much on reasons for change but making sure no friendship bridges were burnt; a gradually tapered change of attendance over a long time; avoiding any public discussion of reasons for leaving and particularly not criticising the old church to the new one; and a period of settling in very quietly at the new place before expressing interest in taking on any tasks or responsibilities. This sort of transition does take time but is worth doing as positively as possible.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
On "what is a valid reason to leave" -

A
Another friend changed church after just 3 or 4 months. He is a career music teacher, decided to start going to church again, went to the denomination of his youth expecting to volunteer help with either children's choir (which had folded) or handbell choir (which needed a new leader). But the music director (who is famous for running off competent musicians) forbade this guy to do anything musical except sing in the choir. My friend said nuts to that and is now at a different church where he has started both a children's choir and a handbell choir. (The handbell set was sitting unused in the church storage room.)

It is policy, and one of the few that I agree with in my diocese that people must have been attending church for a while and become known before they become involved with children's ministry. I don't think one should expect to turn up at church as an unknown and start running a children's choir.

I left a church that had been my spiritual home when the new minister came teaching a load of nonsense. His intellectual poverty was astounding and the rubbish sermons were one thing but I couldn't stand being told that illness was the result of unresolved sin and/or demonic possession. I couldn't bear hearing that the only way to live a Christian life was to be part of a family with kids. People who were ill, divorced, childless etc were not just marginalised but were really being hurt.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
As a pastor, I would appreciate an honest letter (not a grievance-airing one) about why. Too often people are just too polite to say, but how can a pastor address what s/he doesn't get to know? You have an ideological reason to leave and you could say that neither tersely nor being overly blubbery.

If I had thought I would be heard, I would have. my priest had been extremely critical of my divorce, despite very compelling reasons. adding that on top of years of feeling that my beliefs were only vaguely in line with the church's (or even Christianity's) it was time.

I had moved churches a few times due to moving for work, and this particular priest preached a political line that I found offensive. I respectfully told him so a few times that we spoke. He even bashed the very denomination in his sermons, and talked of how other denominations were better.

Needless to say I struggled with him, and my falling out of faith, in general. but when he strongly and publicly opposed my divorce, it was the final straw. of course, this made it look like I left for selfish differences.

I was in a horribly emotional place, and not capable of communicating without using very subjective language. I was uncomfortable expressing why I had to GET OUT except that I knew I did. And I knew that a talk or letter expressing my feelings would only get me written off as hysterical and self-centered. He already believed that I made judgements based on an inflated ego, so I chose not to confirm him beliefs.

it was easier to just go.

I'm sure it depends on the situation for each person. A letter is fine if you think it will do any good.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:
As a pastor, I would appreciate an honest letter (not a grievance-airing one) about why. Too often people are just too polite to say, but how can a pastor address what s/he doesn't get to know? You have an ideological reason to leave and you could say that neither tersely nor being overly blubbery.

If you, as a minister, finally got shot of a parishioner you saw as troublesome, divisive and frankly arsey, and that parishioner left with a letter accusing you of doing something terribly wrong that you in fact thought was completely right, would you be inclined to take your divisive, troublesome and difficult ex-parishioner's letter seriously?

Problem is, I've been a troublemaker for a long time now, ever since they realised that I wasn't just playing Devil's advocate. No matter how I phrase a letter, it'd be seen as me putting the boot in, or finding a reason to get offended, or something. I don't trust my ministers to view my words sympathetically. I do not trust them.

Look. I'm not a saint or a hero. I'm doing something I should have done years ago. And I reckon that if I'm honest, some — some, mind — of the leadership's issues with me are valid. I'm not the good guy here, because that presupposes a bad guy.

I cannot see how any letter from me will not cause more hurt or worse, just be ignored.

[ 25. January 2011, 10:19: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

To throw something else into the mix, as a minister I have a several good friends (who are now all reading this and wondering if I am talking about them) who I love very much, but whom I am really not sure I would get on with so well in a Church situation. This includes some clergy!

The differences range from theological to liturgical to musical.

As I suggested on the Dead Churches thread a single congregation is not the local church. It is just one part of it.

As a Parish priest my main concern is that people grow in discipleship and the fullness of faith. If they grow better by taking the trip up the road to the nearest FiF / New Wine / Methodist / Uber-Inclusive / Choral / Sunday School Running / Linked to Child's School / etc. congregation then I would rather that than them trying to turn where we cannot be or feeling frustrated.

I would hope that any Pastor would feel the same.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

I would hope that any Pastor would feel the same.

The implication being sadly that many don't.

Which is Wood's concern in his last post.

If you are going to write a letter then I would suggest something positive about the congregation, the pastor and the ministry and then the frank admission that you have significant differences on a particular issue - you don't even have to name it - and feel it is time to move on.

3 stars and a wish so to speak!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Might I say that, as a Minister, I feel desperately sad when someone leaves the church - especially if they have not felt that they can come and talk to me, or write me a letter, about it. That is not so I can try and emotionally blackmail them out of leaving - that would never be my aim. But such a lack of communication shows that, somewhere along the line, that the pastoral relationship hadn't worked out as it should. And that is a failure on the church's part, or of mine.

Furthermore, it would be very helpful to know the reasons that someone feels they must go, so that we can correct deficiencies and oversights before they affect someone else. Clearly, the issues might be theological ones that are incapable of resolution - although in my experience it has more often been issues of worship style or perceived hurt that have been more common (I say "perceived" because some people have unrealistic expectations of what the church can do for them and how it must bend over backwards to accomodate all their preferences and opinions!)

But there is more to this. As a minister - what sometimes used to be quaintly termed an "under-shepherd" of the flock - I find that I am personally hurt when someone leaves. I suspect that many ministers, especially those in "sole charge" of a church, feel the same: their whole life and ministry are inextricably intertwined, they can't just sit back and let the congregation's problems wash over them.

Accuse me of being too possessive and emotionally involved, if you like; but when someone leaves - especially if the reasons seem trivial - it is like an arrow shot into my heart.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

I would hope that any Pastor would feel the same.
The implication being sadly that many don't.

Which is Wood's concern in his last post.

If you are going to write a letter then I would suggest something positive about the congregation, the pastor and the ministry and then the frank admission that you have significant differences on a particular issue - you don't even have to name it - and feel it is time to move on.

3 stars and a wish so to speak!

Actually, that is a really good approach, Edward. I think I might start there.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Accuse me of being too possessive and emotionally involved, if you like; but when someone leaves - especially if the reasons seem trivial - it is like an arrow shot into my heart.

I just don't see the 'local' church in that way at all. I don't see my relationship with the congregation like that either.

I have a cure of souls for an area where most people do not have a practised faith. That breaks my heart.

I think there is a big ecclesiological difference underneath here. I suspect it is linked to why I left the New Churches, and why I still struggle with aspects of Evangelical Congregationalism.

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

I knew a man who left a church in a huff – only to return at a later date, cause problems again and leave, only to return again to cause problems. Third time lucky (for the congregation) they left again for good (I think [Confused]

). There is a pattern with this person and other local churches. And such a ‘spiritual’ person, you know! But very sure about what they believe.

I left my last church because I had to – I was the minister and retired so was expected to move on (and fully agree with the principle). This proved to be a life-changer. I had time and space to reflect, to ask questions that I had dared not ask whilst in ministry. The result was that, although I found a really excellent congregation where I would have been useful and warmly ministered to, I gave up on church and GOD.

‘Space’ can be good for some, but not if you are fixed in your ways / sure of what you believe.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Wood

On the objectivity of leaders, there is a quote I have used on a few occasions here (from one of the "Dune" series).

"If you put away from you those who seek to tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of one's own reflections".

I got a similar bit of advice a lot of years ago from a work colleague.

"If you tell a senior officer they're wrong, and you are wrong, they will often make allowances; even see it as a sign of initiative and a capability for independent thought. If you tell them they are wrong, and they are wrong, they'll never forgive you!"

I think you're right about letters in detail. "Differences in outlook and vision, however differently we may see them" is often about as far as you can go in candour. Some folks duck it, come up with some diplomatic equivalent of "I need to spend more time with my family".

There is another line from SF literature that can come in handy hereabouts.

"Silence is not what I would choose, but I prefer it to a lie". (Ursula le Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness".)

My very best wishes to you. I think your caution is well-placed! Some folks will always see leaving as a criticism.

[Votive]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

My very best wishes to you. I think your caution is well-placed! Some folks will always see leaving as a criticism.

To be fair, though, it sort of actually is a criticism in this case.

Posted by five (# 14492) on :

I too would hope that any pastor would feel the same, but there's enough horror stories here (and on previous threads) that obviously it isn't the case. Then again, there's lousy people in every job. Adding into lousy people a long standing and much reinforced feeling that they've been called by God to do what they're doing so incredibly badly just makes it worse.

And the issue that broke your back is a tricky one that's been hacked to death (and Dead Horses). You may have a hard time finding a church that fully accepts what you need them to, as there are very few that are out there professing the inclusion of gay couples, and often those that are are in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" category. I mean, the Catholic church certainly has plenty of openly gay (if not practicing) priests, staff, etc, and congregations where they feel welcome (and others where they do not feel welcome), but that doesn't change the stated principle that homosexual relations is a sin. This is NOT to bring up the rights and wrongs of a dead horse topic, but to say that you might have a challenge finding a church whose official and/or unofficial lines are in line with your thinking. You're going to have to decide what is important to you and what isn't in this search. Can you live with somewhere where your gay friends would be welcome and take communion but same sex relations is still sinful? Do you need somehwere that doesn't have women priests? Do you need somewhere that DOES have women priests? The child provision sounds important to you and Mrs Wood, but you'll have to figure out what sort of child provision. Do you need full on Godly Play? Or are some coloring sheets and Bible stories ok? Or is it enough that children aren't rejected, but no special provision is made for them? And so on. It will leave you feeling even more wounded to have to walk away from a second church, but it sounds like you'll be spending a bit of time sitting quietly in the pews figuring out what's what for all of you, and that is likely a very good idea.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Yes, all those things are wise and we are thinking about them.

quote:
Originally posted by five:
...it sounds like you'll be spending a bit of time sitting quietly in the pews figuring out what's what for all of you, and that is likely a very good idea.

That's the plan.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
I have a cure of souls for an area where most people do not have a practised faith. That breaks my heart.

Although we in the Free Churches don't have the cure of souls in a parish, the lack of peoples' faith around our churches (buildings) still breaks our hearts.

quote:
I think there is a big ecclesiological difference underneath here. I suspect it is linked to why I left the New Churches, and why I still struggle with aspects of Evangelical Congregationalism.

I'm sure you are right in that - although don't necessarily equate "Evangelical" and "Congregational"!

[ 25. January 2011, 13:52: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

My very best wishes to you. I think your caution is well-placed! Some folks will always see leaving as a criticism.
To be fair, though, it sort of actually is a criticism in this case.

I guess it all depends on the nature of the criticism. If it is over theological differences, that can be said. If the differences have become personal, and character-related, that is much harder to say. But the hardest issue is over perceived unfairness of treatment - of oneself or others. Normally that cannot be resolved at all, since there are nearly always two different views of what is fair, and some polarisation if previous attempts to resolve have not worked.

It's why I believe all churches can benefit from some "appeal to third party arbitration" in such cases. And very few nonco churches have anything like that.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

I think that, for me, the main reason I would leave a church would be due to an irreconcilable change in the theology.

When I joined our current church (nearly 20 years ago) I knew that the only theological stand I could not accept was infant baptism. However, the church's position is well thought out, and does not actually cause me a theological problem. When I was called to be an elder, I spoke at length with the then minister about my concerns of being in a theological leadership situation while having a conflict on this matter. In the end, it was resolved that as long as I didn't cause divisiveness on the issue, I could serve, which I have done. In fact, our two children were baptised. I did this because, while I don't really think this was the proper teaching for baptism, it is the proper teaching of our church, and, being only symbolic, to participate was not an issue of theology, but one of fellowship.

So, I think that a difference of opinion, or even theology can be overcome. However, if the church changed their theological stance on an important issue (that is, to a stance which I think is not more than just not supported Biblically, but which is actually contrary to Biblical teaching), I would have to remove myself from the church.

To give an example, and trying to find one that is not a Dead Horse limits the choices, but if our church started teaching that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, I would find that to be impossible to accept. In that case, I would resign as an elder and leave the church immediately. The same would apply if I changed my theological stance on this issue.

I often disagree on things like music styles and programs offered in the church, but these, for me, are not sufficient for me to even think of leaving, although others have left over them.

In the end, our elders and minister like to know when someone is leaving, and why. It allows for closure, and to know if the reason is one that is attributable to their actions which can be rectified or explained, and also if the person leaving should be contacted. A polite letter explaining, briefly that the reason is theological, and that you think a different church would be more suitable would be most appreciated. At least in my church.

Whatever you do, Wood; where ever you go; find someplace where you can experience the fullness of God's love. Seek peace for yourself, your family and those around you.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
In the end, our elders and minister like to know when someone is leaving, and why.

Sometimes, it is not possible to put into words. So you end up trying to write something, but it ends up being a side issue rather than the real reason, and looks so trite when written down. If it was not too injurious to my health*, I'd suggest arranging an appointment to talk rather than writing a letter. Talking it over might help to tease out real reasons from all the conflicting emotions. (*When it's a case of (physical / emotional / spiritual) abuse, eg. then a personal one-to-one discussion is not to be recommended!)
I was given the advice, 'Take someone you trust with you'.

[ 25. January 2011, 14:43: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Another friend changed church after just 3 or 4 months. He is a career music teacher, decided to start going to church again, went to the denomination of his youth expecting to volunteer help with either children's choir (which had folded) or handbell choir (which needed a new leader). But the music director (who is famous for running off competent musicians) forbade this guy to do anything musical except sing in the choir. My friend said nuts to that and is now at a different church where he has started both a children's choir and a handbell choir. (The handbell set was sitting unused in the church storage room.)

It is policy, and one of the few that I agree with in my diocese that people must have been attending church for a while and become known before they become involved with children's ministry. I don't think one should expect to turn up at church as an unknown and start running a children's choir.

A valid concern in a large city, or anywhere the person new at the church is unknown. In this tiny town, where this career music teacher taught many of today's young parents, he was well known before he walked in the door.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Another friend changed church after just 3 or 4 months. He is a career music teacher, decided to start going to church again, went to the denomination of his youth expecting to volunteer help with either children's choir (which had folded) or handbell choir (which needed a new leader). But the music director (who is famous for running off competent musicians) forbade this guy to do anything musical except sing in the choir. My friend said nuts to that and is now at a different church where he has started both a children's choir and a handbell choir. (The handbell set was sitting unused in the church storage room.)

It is policy, and one of the few that I agree with in my diocese that people must have been attending church for a while and become known before they become involved with children's ministry. I don't think one should expect to turn up at church as an unknown and start running a children's choir.
A valid concern in a large city, or anywhere the person new at the church is unknown. In this tiny town, where this career music teacher taught many of today's young parents, he was well known before he walked in the door.

Irrelevant. Most church leaders would want to spend some time getting to know a new congregation member before they allowed them to take on a position of responsiblity. Even if they have previous experience, their style and outlook might not work in that particular church situation.

If they wanted to work with children, they would also need a full Criminal Records Bureau check and some training before they could start. That protects both the church and the individual.

Tubbs

[ 25. January 2011, 15:14: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Although we in the Free Churches don't have the cure of souls in a parish, the lack of peoples' faith around our churches (buildings) still breaks our hearts.

I'm sure you are right in that - although don't necessarily equate "Evangelical" and "Congregational"!

I was wasn't using the terms in a strict sense. Rather referring to a particular culture that exists in some evangelical churches that are gathered congregations.

It is almost as if congregation and pastor own one another and feel easily betrayed. If anything it reminds me of the relationship between parents and teenagers.

Plenty of Anglican Evangelical churches have the same culture. I am sure churches of all traditions have it in some way.

Don't get me wrong. Lots of people stuff in church does cut me - and outside. Sometimes it is the things the people who don't come to church say that hurt the most. The Daily Mail's comments on the CofE probably sum them up best.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
In the end, our elders and minister like to know when someone is leaving, and why.
Sometimes, it is not possible to put into words. ... Talking it over might help to tease out real reasons from all the conflicting emotions. ...I was given the advice, 'Take someone you trust with you'.

I wrote a simple letter "I am resigning from membership in this church" because I thought that was more polite than just disappearing. Clergy person asked me to come in and discuss it, saying he was curious because he had never received a letter like that before - but I was to come during office hours, which meant I had to take vacation time from work (huge cost to me, we only get ten days) to see him at his convenience for his benefit.

The discussion consisted of him telling me I was following the devil if I left.

But think about it - if the reason for leaving is at all due to theological differences, isn't it normal for each side to think the other is just plain wrong and not listening to God? Unless they've been on the Ship or otherwise discovered that significant differences are normal. [Smile]

I obviously wasn't thinking clearly, that I gave up precious vacation time to discuss what, a decision I had made after weeks of long serious prayer? I wouldn't do that again - take time off from work to go in to the office for not my benefit. A friend there might have helped quiet the tone of the "discussion" but what friend would take time off work to go with me on a non-emergency?

For someone on shift work or unemployed, "come in during office hours to discuss it" might be a more reasonable request, for an employed person it is not.

Posted by Jenn. (# 5239) on :

In response to Belle Ringer Re 6 month rule: I disagree. I think it is important that the vicar/minister knows the person and how they interact with others in the church. Personality clashes are bad news. Egos can be bad news. That's without even asking why things stopped in the first place and who might be hurt by them restarting.

And you shouldn't make exceptions when it comes to child protection issues. It sets a bad precedent.

[ 25. January 2011, 15:43: Message edited by: Jenn. ]

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

In response to the original post, and also a bit to Chorister's:

quote:
I'm interested in how couples and families make their decisions, compared to individuals who have only themselves to think about.

this is something I've pondered on a few occasions over recent years. I still attend the fellowship I grew up in, having failed to maintain escape velocity in geographical/work terms and landed back in my 'home town'. Over the last 10+ years (actually, probably 20+ years in some ways!) I've had various deep frustrations with aspects of it all. Some are on-going, some are resolved, and some are simply consigned to the dust-bin of history as ships that have sailed, for good or ill.

In that time I've been on the formal leadership, and involved in relatively significant ways outside of the formal leadership. I've agitated, argued, debated, listened, prayed, participated, liaised, bridge-built (not necessarily in that order) seen the error of my ways in places and worn a hole in the desk banging my head against it in others.

Probably only twice in all that time have I really come close to thinking "This is so far from how it should be, I need to bail for my own sanity and integrity". The things that have held me in place have been a mixture of seeing the possibility for (good) change in the future; a recognition that a lot of other really good stuff was going on; Mrs Snags not really fancy making anywhere else local her permanent home (not sure how much of that is theological, how much style, and how much social awkwardness); and finally, knowing that whilst moving from fellowship A to fellowship B might deal with issue X, there were a whole load of things at fellowship B that would drive me equally mental in a few months/years.

All of that said, I would be off like a shot if I found myself with a profound, fundamental disagreement with the leadership in core theology or practical outworking and was prevented from expressing such in an atmosphere of mutual 'respect' and recognition. To date we've had a reasonable record of at least allowing, acknowledging and giving some time to genuine dissent, even if the upshot has been "Yes, well, I hear what you're saying, but ...". If it ever came down to "My way or the highway" I'd register my disappointment, and start packing my bags.

Of course, I've been lucky enough to be in a position where the things that have lost me sleep etc. have still been things that allowed me to contribute constructively to the whole, and the head/wall incidents haven't been totally binary.

From working issues through and staying, I can appreciate a lot of Wood's angst on coming up against an issue where, having worked things through, staying is no longer an option [Frown]

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by five:
And the issue that broke your back is a tricky one that's been hacked to death (and Dead Horses). You may have a hard time finding a church that fully accepts what you need them to, as there are very few that are out there professing the inclusion of gay couples, and often those that are are in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" category.

It depends on where you are. I know straight off of at least three churches in my city which are entirely in favour of including gay couples. Admittedly two are in the same Anglican parish. At one point we had two gay church sub-wardens and then it was one gay sub-warden and one gay treasurer. If Wood lives in a city, then he's probably got similar choices available to him.

Carys

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I have a cure of souls for an area where most people do not have a practised faith. That breaks my heart.

Isn't that rather a presumption? Who gave you it? Did the people assent?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jenn.:
And you shouldn't make exceptions when it comes to child protection issues. It sets a bad precedent.

Never, ever cut corners when it comes to child protection. The music teacher may be ok in school but if he's a paedo on the prowl its part of a common tactic to have a "cover" in one part of life. It masks something very different that emerges in a context where checking is less rigorous because of what's seen elsewhere.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:

quote:
Originally posted by five:
And the issue that broke your back is a tricky one that's been hacked to death (and Dead Horses). You may have a hard time finding a church that fully accepts what you need them to, as there are very few that are out there professing the inclusion of gay couples, and often those that are are in the "love the sinner, hate the sin" category.
It depends on where you are. I know straight off of at least three churches in my city which are entirely in favour of including gay couples. Admittedly two are in the same Anglican parish. At one point we had two gay church sub-wardens and then it was one gay sub-warden and one gay treasurer. If Wood lives in a city, then he's probably got similar choices available to him.

Carys

It's probably wise to remember that there's another side to this: some would leave (and have left) churches that became more welcoming to gay couples.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't trust my ministers to view my words sympathetically. I do not trust them.

This, all by itself, is legitimate reason to leave.

How can you be pastored by a voice you do not trust?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
...people must have been attending church for a while and become known before they become involved with children's ministry. I don't think one should expect to turn up at church as an unknown and start running a children's choir.
A valid concern in a large city, or anywhere the person new at the church is unknown. In this tiny town, where this career music teacher taught many of today's young parents, he was well known before he walked in the door.
Irrelevant. Most church leaders would want to spend some time getting to know a new congregation member before they allowed them to take on a position of responsibility. Even if they have previous experience, their style and outlook might not work in that particular church situation.

If they wanted to work with children, they would also need a full Criminal Records Bureau check and some training before they could start. That protects both the church and the individual.

I'm curious - I guess this is a tangent - how do churches handle vacancies? This person left a paid position due to budget cuts, volunteers picked up that work at his church including a never set foot in that church or denomination before organist, my friend sought to volunteer in the church across the street, then landed a paid position in a different church in a different town.

And note that he was willing to do handbell choir, not insisting on children's choir. Do churches disband Children's choir, adult choir, handbell choir, organ playing when someone leaves, instead of recruiting someone new to the congregation continue them?

Anyway, we don't have the mandatory criminal checks you do, instead we have liability for hiring someone who we should have known is a danger to others, and structural awareness like glass doors plus never closing doors to a room where an adult and child are together (or a man and woman). And yes the guy spent time with the pastor discussing the music program.

Anyway, back on topic, it was intended as an example of someone leaving a church because the significant gifts he had to offer that many a church longs for were rejected. The rejection was not "until we get to know you" but the music director resisting competency in others. He is known throughout the town for running off a number of excellent musicians.

Some might say my friend should have stayed there and found secular ways to use his musicianship, that having his useful-to-churches talents rejected was insufficient reason to leave. Instead he went and found a church that wants what he has to offer.

The issue wasn't "wait a while til we get to know you," the issue was "we have a music director who will never allow you to help even where the director is failing to do it all."

But in general USA churches are eager to involve people. I've known people to land on Vestry who have been in this country only few months! I've known people to start a Bible study within weeks of arriving at a church.

All it takes is a quick chat with clergy about what your plans are so the clergy know if it's way off base or reasonably OK. Then the Bible study leaders make their own child care arrangements for the moms in the group. Fast, fluid, inexpensive. Safe because the moms hire friends to babysit the kids, which may not be perfectly safe but it's as safe as any criminal check would be.

We are a nation of movers, if you make people wait a year before they can be involved, they will have become involved in community activities and not have time for church activities, newcomers jump into things fast to start making friends.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But think about it - if the reason for leaving is at all due to theological differences, isn't it normal for each side to think the other is just plain wrong and not listening to God? Unless they've been on the Ship or otherwise discovered that significant differences are normal.

A lot depends on the reason for going. If you're leaving your church because you've come to the conclusion they 'don't preach the gospel', or the BVM is being sidelined, or they preach against gay sex, you're not likely to find much agreement from the vicar on the point of obvious difference. But if you're leaving your church because there's no youth club for your teenager, or creche for your baby, or Sunday morning pick-up service for non-drivers, you might actually find the church leader agreeing with you!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
And note that he was willing to do handbell choir, not insisting on children's choir. Do churches disband Children's choir, adult choir, handbell choir, organ playing when someone leaves, instead of recruiting someone new to the congregation continue them?

It's likely that because there's such a culture of police checks now, there would be a few other adults in the choir or in the church leadership who would have the necessary CRB checks, too. Otherwise, I guess the choir would continue to meet as they normally do to rehearse or sing with everyone exercising the (hopefully!) usual common sense about being alone with children.

The point of the choir master's CRB check is in case, given his position of authority over the children, he is alone with the kids for rehearsal at any time.

With regard to the point about it being a handbell choir - if it is an adult handbell choir with no possibility of children being part, I suppose no CRB checks would be required (if it were in Britain). But for mixed groups of adults and kids anyone in a leadership position, or potentially in a position where they would be one-to-one with a child, would probably be expected to be police checked.

Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :

Speaking as a Pensioner, I realise that our needs and requirements change as we age. Most churches target one group of people eg young families.

I am getting into quieter and quieter services, with no singing and lots of silences.

So I feel its quiet normal to change churches..its no big deal. And you're not betraying anyone.

Pax et Bonum

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
All it takes is a quick chat with clergy about what your plans are so the clergy know if it's way off base or reasonably OK. Then the Bible study leaders make their own child care arrangements for the moms in the group. Fast, fluid, inexpensive. Safe because the moms hire friends to babysit the kids, which may not be perfectly safe but it's as safe as any criminal check would be. [/QB]

Um. No. Not as safe as a criminal record check and screening policy.

I have been directly involved in cases where criminal abuse occurred because of this type of thinking and while I apologize for the tangent, can't let that go.

We are a church. We will protect the vulnerable by requiring screening of caregivers and by having a culture among clergy and leaders that appreciates and minimizes the risk that they assume.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
Speaking as a Pensioner, I realise that our needs and requirements change as we age. Most churches target one group of people eg young families.

I am getting into quieter and quieter services, with no singing and lots of silences.

So I feel its quiet normal to change churches..its no big deal. And you're not betraying anyone.

Interesting comment, life journey. If a particular person is charismatic or evangelistic for a decade or two, then traditional liturgical for a while, then said service or contemplative prayer gathering, but local churches to specialize in one of these, one's own best spiritual journey might take that person through more than one church. Another person might better staying with one of these through life.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

I just wanted to add that sometimes the reason for leaving a church is not because there is any problem with the church you are attending it is simply because you feel that your gifts are needed some place else.

I once left a church that I liked very much, and which had many talented people in active ministry to go to a struggling church who I felt were more in need of my gifts. It was a good decision, although hard at the time. I believe I was a real help to the new church.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Might I say that, as a Minister, I feel desperately sad when someone leaves the church - especially if they have not felt that they can come and talk to me, or write me a letter, about it. That is not so I can try and emotionally blackmail them out of leaving - that would never be my aim. But such a lack of communication shows that, somewhere along the line, that the pastoral relationship hadn't worked out as it should. And that is a failure on the church's part, or of mine.

Furthermore, it would be very helpful to know the reasons that someone feels they must go, so that we can correct deficiencies and oversights before they affect someone else. Clearly, the issues might be theological ones that are incapable of resolution - although in my experience it has more often been issues of worship style or perceived hurt that have been more common (I say "perceived" because some people have unrealistic expectations of what the church can do for them and how it must bend over backwards to accomodate all their preferences and opinions!)

But there is more to this. As a minister - what sometimes used to be quaintly termed an "under-shepherd" of the flock - I find that I am personally hurt when someone leaves. I suspect that many ministers, especially those in "sole charge" of a church, feel the same: their whole life and ministry are inextricably intertwined, they can't just sit back and let the congregation's problems wash over them.

Accuse me of being too possessive and emotionally involved, if you like; but when someone leaves - especially if the reasons seem trivial - it is like an arrow shot into my heart.

I feel very much the same way. I don't want to try to talk someone out of leaving, but I would like to try to amend if I've caused hurt. Also, if there was a way to shore up deficiencies in other areas, I'd want to know what it is.

If there are theological differences, then maybe a move is just "one of those things" and is for the best in the long run.

Comet and Wood have both made me realize why a letter may not be the best response. I do understand; I've been in that place, myself. I can't help but wonder, in that co-dependent way I slip into, what I've done to hurt people so deeply that they never tell me why they left... [Frown]

or whether it even had anything to do with me (especially since UM pastors move every 5 years or so).

I'm thinking of the time I resigned a choir and declined invitations to return. I even talked to the director about some of my difficulties, because I appreciate knowing the(sometimes painful) truth. In the end, I just made up an excuse, and chalked it up to the choir just not being right for me. Though there was a high attrition rate, plenty of folks had been singing in it for years and years and liked it just fine. They got a good audience, too.

So... I'm saying that I really can understand now that I think about it (and now that these 2 recent threads have addressed it).

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Bible study leaders make their own child care arrangements for the moms in the group. Fast, fluid, inexpensive. Safe because the moms hire friends to babysit the kids, which may not be perfectly safe but it's as safe as any criminal check would be.
Um. No. Not as safe as a criminal record check and screening policy.

I have been directly involved in cases where criminal abuse occurred because of this type of thinking and while I apologize for the tangent, can't let that go.

We are a church. We will protect the vulnerable by requiring screening of caregivers and by having a culture among clergy and leaders that appreciates and minimizes the risk that they assume. [/QB]

Not disagreeing on need to protect the vulnerable, which is more than children.

But, criminal abuse happened by someone who was already convicted of that kind of abuse, and lifelong friends didn't know? How did that happen? That's what I'm describing, Moms hiring as babysitters for Bible studies women they grew up with, or hiring each other's 12 year old girls to babysit. Is that dangerous behavior? A man who has been in the local school system for decades - i.e. regularly criminally checked for everything , not just sexual abuse - and no unexplained gaps in his presence in this small community where everyone knows everyone else's name. Is hiring him or letting him volunteer dangerous behavior? I really do want to know.

Seems to me six months sitting in a pew and helping with pot lucks or lawn care isn't going to flush out a careful predator with no criminal record.

(The sex offender list is free on line. I've checked out all my neighbors, one is on the list.)

Personally I think any man who works with children is taking a huge risk if he works in an area without video cameras to protect him from false accusations. Lets protect the kids AND their adult workers!

FWIW, Handbell choir is adults only.

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

Have replied by pm so as not to continue the tangent. But simply, a well understood and implemented screening policy is a must for all churches. The cost of not screening is too high.

[ 25. January 2011, 19:09: Message edited by: lily pad ]

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

I think that the child protection questions maybe need their own thread.

Going back to the question, the big reasons for leaving would be:
1) the church is causing hurt - to me or to others.
2) I am causing the church hurt
3) If I have stopped worshipping God while attending worship in that place.

This list is not dissimilar to Eutychus' list on the first page. I have been friends with people who left the church over reason 1 and on reflection reason 3 was significant when I decided to leave the church I talked about earlier. The big challenge then becomes coping with the knowledge that people who are important to you are still at that church and don't see, or rate as highly, the problem that led you to your decision to leave.

'frin

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

Letters of any kind are a bad idea IMHO and IME.

Once written, it can end up anywhere with anyone who knows little about the context of the letter itself.

I'd suggest a meeting

1. On neutral ground
2. With an independent chair or observer
3. Bring a friend
4. Make sure you pray together before and after
5. Be ready to forgive
6. Be prepared to lsiten, not fight a corner: who really is "right?" Honesty at all times
7. Most issues of this kind centre around the 3 P's of dispute - principles, practice and preference. Few fall into the 1st IMHO - some fall into the last 2 and they are hard to shift as by the time the discussion starts most are pretty far gone

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

Within months of starting ministry in my first appointment (loast year)I had to face the issue of a church group meeting to prayer for Israel in a manner that actually involved praying that palestinians and Arab nations be smited a la OT.

In facing up to it and telling them that they could not meet in our name or on our premises as it was contrary to our denominational stance on the issue [useful separation that it is not about my opinion alone] we had some members later leave the church.

The group leader and his wife, who had always been difficult characters and other members were all but scared of, stayed for a while staring me down ('not going to be pushed out of the church by new person, young, woman, and just out of college')but as boycotted everything I led or was at and people glad that someone had stood up to him they finally left - no word, just returned thier keys to the treasurer. In fact refused to speak to me in the street or at funerals etc. I only clipped his wings re that group but it was a relief to the whole congregation when they left.

Another member of the group was torn between loyalty to this man who had been a study leader to her for years and the church roots (plus small town, limited options and no car) However a denominational report some months later made her decide to leave us.

I visited her, we chatted, I asked about where she would go and concerned that she found fellowship somewhere, we prayed for each other and I prayed that she would find and settle well in a new place.

We speakk when we meet and she is happy to share in midweek things when the times suit. She knows she is welcome to come back but that she will not be pushed.

Disagreement shouldn't stop me wishing them well in their future places, though in the former case it invovled praying for the new church as well! But for anyone going the move, the conflict, it is painful and was keen to know they had pastoral support even if I could not be the one to offer it because our relationship was too damaged.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
If they wanted to work with children, they would also need a full Criminal Records Bureau check and some training before they could start. That protects both the church and the individual.

Records checks do a lot less that people generally think, and you indicated this. But it tweaked me to add some specifics.

If someone has a criminal record then they will turn up a positive record and can be screened out. However since the vast, vast majority of sexual and related crimes against children are never reported and never prosecuted, it misses these people who may in fact be more dangerous because they are better at hiding their behaviour and at not getting caught.

Thus churches must do their diligence beyond the paper work that pleases lawyers when defending lawsuits against church after the fact: supervise the volunteers, have sufficient volunteers so that they are seldom all alone, provide briefing and orientation info that includes the sexual harassment and abuse policies both discussed and in written form, and check references. This last one - 'check references' is absolutely vital, and may tell you much more than the records check. Of course those doing the work in checking volunteers and orienting them must have excellent orientation and training themselves. It is quite typical that social workers and police will be more than happy to help in this regard, ask, and the worst that can be said is 'no, too busy'.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

In the life of any church, even the most excellent one, people leave from time to time, and new people arrive.
I don't think the clergy need bust a gut with worry every time an individual or one family leave their church. It happens. Better to accept it and give those departing their blessing.
They might, however, do well to worry if 50 people leave at once or in a very short space of time. [Ultra confused]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've been reading this with mixed feelings because of what happened to my family long ago and my guilt at not answering the letter asking if I wanted to continue my membership, having missed 6 communions. I thought it was perfectly obvious that I wouldn't be after my mother was hauled up before a selection of deacons like Rabbie Burns for no clearly defined reason - except that it concerned her work with the children. I was guilty about not answering because it was one of the decent folk, and I could not say to her what I wanted to say, so I said nothing.

I was going to say nothing here, either, but seeing that post about having a meeting and making sure it started with prayer, I felt I had to. That deacons' meeting started with prayer - and my mother felt she was being prayed at aggressively. If you can make the prayer a time to bring concerns before God in silence, fine. But if it is to be spoken, then the minister/pastor/priest will expect to lead it, and it could be putting a weapon into his hand. (Mostly his, I expect, but her if appropriate - the nastiest deacon was female.) If trust has already gone, then behaving as if it hasn't won't help.
I have also been thinking about what Colin Firth said about his attitude to political parties. He moved from Labour to LibDem, and has now left them. He said that he has not moved in what he believes, but that the parties have moved from where they stood. If it feels that the church has done that, then leaving is what you need to do.
Penny

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If you can make the prayer a time to bring concerns before God in silence, fine. But if it is to be spoken, then the minister/pastor/priest will expect to lead it, and it could be putting a weapon into his hand.

That is the best analysis and description of a situation that I was in some years ago. I postponed a requested meeting with the priest to a time after I knew I would have left, because he (yes, a he) had become adept at extempore prayer imploring the Holy Spirit to action his own prejudices and preferences. Any sort of mildly different viewpoint then becomes disobedient to God. Spiritual blackmail via the weapon of prayer.

Posted by Clemency (# 16173) on :

I've left two churches (other than by geographical moves); both were painful happenings, one fairly instant, one more long drawn out. The first was when the new minister at a rural Baptist church suddenly got into serious fundamentalism and heavy shepherding, and for all sorts of reasons became unlivable with. Half the congrgeation left and we formed a 'new fellowship'; the first years of that were great, and a learning experience. Fifteen years on something I would never have preducted happened - the leadership changed tack; one 'spiritual' guy came in and got their ear. 'We have decided to relieve you of the responsibility for decision-making' was the phrase used in one meeting, and 'the church is not a democracy' on several occasions. No argument, no discussion, on one occasion I was told 'I'm sorry, but that is just the way that it is'. What had been an 'us' became an 'us-and-them'. These folk were, or had been, our brothers, sisters and friends. we left as gently as possible (as did most of the fellowship) but of our relationships with those who had stayed could never be the same. It still hurts; I don't think this sort of scar is one you ever really lose. If you think about it theologically - us being the Body of Christ and all that - it gets scary. But, then again, Paul and Barnabas split up, didn't they?
Five years on, I am not only an Anglican but a Reader. That is something else I would never have envisaged.

Posted by eeGAD (# 4675) on :

Wood, my heart aches for you during this difficult time. It sounds like you have been presented with a very strong question of What Do You Believe? And do you believe it enough to put those beliefs into action?

Leaving a community is never easy, be it by choice or relocation. You have memories, and hopefully friends. Those that know you are trying to live the best Christian life for Wood, will be sorry to see you go, but will wish you well on your way, and hopefully keep in touch.

However, for those that practice things that are hurtful to you, or that you find in conflict with your beliefs, you have two choices. Fight or Flight. And sometimes after a long fight all that is left is flight.

Follow the path that you belief God wants for you. Hopefully that path will help you find some peace.

Two questions for you to ponder:

First - regarding the loss of your tithe to the parish income if you leave - Would you donate funds to a charitable organization that did not practice what you in your heart feel is right? If the answer is "no", then why do you worry about removing your tithe from a church that preaches against what you believe? Could those funds be donated to an organization that helps promote your Christian ethics?

Second - regarding The Letter - What do you wish to achieve with this letter? Don't answer right away. Just think about it.
Who are you writing it for, the rector or yourself? Or the congregation as a whole?

I hope my 2 cents have helped you think about things perhaps from a different perspective.

Keep us up to date on your journey. I wish you well.

-eeG

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Some congregations just aren't good fits for people. Over the years we've lost a few families to some ueber-conservative congregations in other traditions...my pastor says he'd much rather that these people be happy Baptists than unhappy Lutherans.

Posted by frin (# 9) on :

I remember a lengthy disagreement with a person I was working with on a project which ended with a kind of working resolution which was unpicked by praying aloud together afterwards, and a summary of the situation before God to which one of us could not assent.

Praying together is great. Except when it isn't.

'frin

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Wood, to change tack completely (although I've just discovered there are shades of it in Clemency's post above) - are you sure you're not receiving the beginnings of a call to ordination? No hear me out, before you fall off your chair in a fit of mirth. Those stirrings of questioning and dissatisfaction with the easy life of the status quo, the awareness of how the church (sometimes) treats others, and the wish to proceed with caution and care. That's often how it starts, or so I've been told.
It may be very early days, and you have a family to bring up. But think about it.

And one day in the distant future, if I really was wrong, then you can laugh at me. Lots.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

Alan Creswell, I think there is more than one strand to this thread and I may very well have picked up some things from some posters which you did not and vice versa.

Wood, I think I understand where you are personally coming from and respect it.

I have spent a great part of my adult life travelling. Perhaps I stayed in a place for 8 or 13 years and then moved on for further study, work or family. Unlike friends of mine who've been born and lived in Melbourne all their adult lives, I haven't. I've led a rather peripatetic existence. My children have gone to different schools in different places and have been brought up to be what I consider good moral people who made their own religious and other choices. So I have never brought them up as continuing members of a bricks and mortar church, though there are interest groups I belonged to which may or may not have influenced them.

One of the major influences in my own religio-spiritual formation was the Society of Jesus, once seen as the bright, shining equivalent of the Brigade of Guards in the Catholic Church. I was asked if I would consider joining them when I was much younger. It was, I believe, a singular honour, not lightly bestowed. Suffice it to say I did not take it.

My religious pilgrimage has taken me elsewhere, but, when I think of 'the church' I think of 'the Church' as an institution much, much larger than St Mumbles of the Crossways.

I can understand people wanting, or being forced to, leave a discrete church. Often it boils down to a matter of personalities. It makes me very sad that many clerics and members of congregations are often so stiff and unbending in their attitudes and behaviour.

There are also reasons where people feel that they cannot take a certain doctrinal position or practice and must move on.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eeGAD:

First - regarding the loss of your tithe to the parish income if you leave - Would you donate funds to a charitable organization that did not practice what you in your heart feel is right? If the answer is "no", then why do you worry about removing your tithe from a church that preaches against what you believe? Could those funds be donated to an organization that helps promote your Christian ethics?

No, I can't in my heart feel it's right. But for all that, it's hard -- it's a Baptist church. These men, not bad men at all, will have their lives made harder by our not being there.

quote:
Second - regarding The Letter - What do you wish to achieve with this letter? Don't answer right away. Just think about it.
Who are you writing it for, the rector or yourself? Or the congregation as a whole?

I feel I owe them some explanation, but I am not sure they want one.

Mrs Wood is seeing the pastor's wife this morning at the mums and tots group. She will tell her, given the chance. I suspect that I may not have to write anything.

Like I said. I'm already dreading the phone call.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Wood, to change tack completely (although I've just discovered there are shades of it in Clemency's post above) - are you sure you're not receiving the beginnings of a call to ordination? No hear me out, before you fall off your chair in a fit of mirth. Those stirrings of questioning and dissatisfaction with the easy life of the status quo, the awareness of how the church (sometimes) treats others, and the wish to proceed with caution and care. That's often how it starts, or so I've been told.
It may be very early days, and you have a family to bring up. But think about it.

And one day in the distant future, if I really was wrong, then you can laugh at me. Lots.

A few years ago, I might have agreed with you, or at least have thought, maybe she has a point. But I think that ship has sailed, frankly.

I don't have that sort of call on my life. I'm pretty certain on that.

[ 26. January 2011, 10:03: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Wood, you do not owe anyone at your ( soon to be) former ekklesia any sort of eksplanation, apologia or whatever.

As others have already said, you may be loading someone else's gun.

If you want to begone, just shake the dust off your shoes and begone.

In a week the management will have forgotten.

m

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
In a week the management will have forgotten.

I remember a good friend (one of a few who were able to treat me the same whether I went to her church or not) saying to me a few months later, 'You are "Old News" now'. It was helpful to hear.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

What a thread! The lack of support for Comet, Bib, and others, when they really needed it, added to the down right frightening stories like Clemency's, make me shudder.

I changed churches a few years ago and although I had determined to say nothing about the old church, I found it hard to do. People would ask if I was new in town and I would have to answer, "No, we've lived here ten years." Then they would give me a, "So where have you been?" look and I would end up saying that I had been going to Church X but they had a new minister who had been there for eight months with no communion and I missed it. The sweet Lutherans would smile and say, "Well. We have it every Sunday."

That was more gossip than I had intended to spread but it beat saying, "The minister is dumb as a rock, gets his sermons from Paul Harvey's radio spots, spreads false rumors as facts, tells the congo to vote Republican in a very unsubtle way, allowed a newbie church hopper to take over the music program (thereby running off the long serving lead singer, choir director and organist) before hopping off to another church and, lastly, had decided, against the denomination's stance, to boycott apportionments to the Conference because they had a gay employee."

I love my new church but just this year they've been having meetings to discuss the Dead Horse Issue. At least the discussions have been kind and thoughtful but the end decision didn't agree with me.

My very wise old pastor told me to sit tight, that he had seen churchs go through this sort of thing before, where everyone was adamantly against some social change one year, and five years later, society itself had caused a change in everyone's thinking so that the new policy seemed like a no-brainer.

I thought of this last night when I watched Glee a US TV show where the main character is the most lovable young thing since Bambi -- and gay. A whole generation of teens are following this show and the idea of excluding him from any church will seem horrible to them --and they'll be on the church board in a few years.

[I hope this isn't too Dead Horsie. I'm just saying whatever side one takes on this issue, it soon might not be an issue at all.]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by eeGAD:

First - regarding the loss of your tithe to the parish income if you leave - Would you donate funds to a charitable organization that did not practice what you in your heart feel is right? If the answer is "no", then why do you worry about removing your tithe from a church that preaches against what you believe? Could those funds be donated to an organization that helps promote your Christian ethics?
No, I can't in my heart feel it's right. But for all that, it's hard -- it's a Baptist church. These men, not bad men at all, will have their lives made harder by our not being there.

quote:
Second - regarding The Letter - What do you wish to achieve with this letter? Don't answer right away. Just think about it.
Who are you writing it for, the rector or yourself? Or the congregation as a whole?
I feel I owe them some explanation, but I am not sure they want one.

Mrs Wood is seeing the pastor's wife this morning at the mums and tots group. She will tell her, given the chance. I suspect that I may not have to write anything.

Like I said. I'm already dreading the phone call.

Not harder, different. When one of the elder’s in Mr T’s church felt called to go and serve as a missionary in Romania, the church was left with 36 jobs to fill. Some they filled, and others they had to leave vacant.

If you accept the whole idea of the Christian life as being a journey, there will be some places and people that you’ll be with for a long time and others are just for a season. Based on what you’ve said here, it doesn’t sound like either you or they have done anything majorly wrong. It’s more that you’re both heading in different directions spiritually and the two are mutually exclusive.

Do whatever you feel is right to ensure that you leave on good terms and don’t carry unwanted baggage with you and start looking elsewhere. It might take a while before you find the right place, but IME you’ll know when you do.

Good luck with it all.

Tubbs

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :

Wood! Long time..

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

So we're starting with churches in walking distance. We're going to join the Anglicans for a bit.

Some of the people who posted here years ago when I got my 7,000 posts would find that ironic.

I snorted, I admit it.

Anyway. I've been thinking a lot about this thread since you posted.

In your OP you mention the possibility of theological issues and relational issues. I think for me, I could probably live with problems in one or other of those areas, but if they both went wrong I'd be wondering why I was still there. (ETA: ...and in general I am with you on your view of church hopping.)

In some ways over the last few years I've moved away from the theology my church teaches. But I've stuck with it, because I have good friends there who (mostly) accept my Slightly Disappointing Dodginess*, when I choose to let them know about it. I have extended family there, my kids have grown up there. They have prayed for my kids when they have been very ill and supported us in practical ways. For me that has been enough to keep me there, sitting at the back and rolling my eyes during some of the preaching.

Last year the church had a real crisis, of the 'pastor leaves wife for church member' variety. For the first few months, I was really impressed with how it was all being handled; people really pulled together and it all looked promising. Since then though, in various ways, the relational side of it all has started to go tits up, and I'm very aware that if that falls apart, staying there is not going to be doing me, my husband or our kids any good. And that's heart-wrenching.

I don't know if there's a similar thing happening in your situation, but maybe it's a more chicken & egg situation. You've become more out of step, as you put it, with the teaching/theology side of it, which has perhaps affected the way people relate to you (having to finish doing the student work etc). So if the relational side has gone a bit wrong, you're more likely to feel that enough's enough when it comes to the particular theological issue at hand. Does that make sense?

b

*thanks to Chalky, years ago, for this phrase.

[ 26. January 2011, 13:46: Message edited by: birdie ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But for all that, it's hard -- it's a Baptist church. These men, not bad men at all, will have their lives made harder by our not being there.
...
I feel I owe them some explanation, but I am not sure they want one.
...
Like I said. I'm already dreading the phone call.

Your primary responsibility is the spiritual care of yourself and your family and you're taking this decision after careful deliberation. That's your prerogative.

IME, the Holy Spirit often speaks though the many voices and actions of His children. Your decision to leave the congregation, taking your family's participation and contribution to the pocketbook perchance speaks volumes to the leadership that words set down on paper could not nearly express so cogently.

Ultimately, they are in His care; not yours. Your responsibility is towards the resources you've been given stewardship of - no more, no less.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

We moved churches recently. There was no children's provision (or other children) at our church. We felt that church being 'normal' was important for them to grown in faith. Unlike Alan C, once we settled on a new church, and mini-tomsk was getting a lot from her group (micro-tomsk can't yet sit up so the need's less pressing), we felt affirmed in the decision we had made. Our family circumstances had changed and the church we were in no longer met our family needs, and in our circumstances the best way to meet that need was through moving church.

I think there's a difference between moving churches to meet a need or to use gifts, and leaving because of relational/spiritual/theological problems (away from vs towards?), in that the latter has ingredients to make it more painful.

Theological differences of the first order can simply be irreconcilable and the reality may be that people can no longer be in fellowship together. What we believe can affect how we behave, and it may be something that one party believes affects salvation. In such cases it may be best to recognise this and move on.

We wrote a letter (we'll Mrs tomsk did, coward that I am), and the priest came round for a chat. It was short, general and tried to be positive about the church. You might find that helps with a sense of closure or orderly departure. Going into great detail and/or having a meeting might be a good idea if you feel that would help but from what you've said that might cause more pain. Once you've left, it's best to leave the battles behind rather than taking them with you so it might help to close that in some way.

Things change. I pray you find somewhere suitable. Don't feel bad about the tithes, the life of the church will continue.

Hope Mrs W's conversation went well.

[Votive]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Some congregations just aren't good fits for people. Over the years we've lost a few families to some ueber-conservative congregations in other traditions...my pastor says he'd much rather that these people be happy Baptists than unhappy Lutherans.

Some congregations just aren't good.

They are the sort of churches which always seem to be there but that's about it. They never seem to keep a pastor very long .... and the reasons for their departure are rarely referred to. Dig a bit deeper and you find that not only do the pastors turn round pretty often, most of the members are very long serving because new attenders also turn round pretty often. They aren't exactly made welcome .... and often at the bottom of it all is someone like LC's Lilian who sees it all as "My church."

Yes you can come and help but it's not on God's terms.....

On another point, I've only ever moved church owing to job moves. On reflection there's one church where I should have wiped the dust off and gone, rather than wait for another job to come up. My relationship with the Pastor never got off the ground, even though I was in leadership.

He had an unfortunate habit of using his position inappropriately, using what he claims were conversations his kids overheard to call people to account. A trainee pastor left after a row, leaders resigned but I stayed put. I was miserable and wished I hadn't as I became the next target after the trainee. Trouble was if you challenged him a) you were touching god's anointed and b) if you had FACTS that he didn't he woukld quickly back track and say "I thought I heard/saw ..." instead if "I heard/saw..."

[One occasion was hilarious: he wanted to chat to me about going to a pub and drinking. Interesting when I wsn't even in the country that week....]

he left and had 4 pastorates in 10 years in 3 countries .... when he leaves it's always someone else's fault. Hmmmmmm I wonder ...... and btw this isn't afreaky set up just a mainline uk denomination

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
IME, the Holy Spirit often speaks though the many voices and actions of His children. Your decision to leave the congregation, taking your family's participation and contribution to the pocketbook perchance speaks volumes to the leadership that words set down on paper could not nearly express so cogently.

Ultimately, they are in His care; not yours. Your responsibility is towards the resources you've been given stewardship of - no more, no less.

OK, that's a fair point.

A minister friend of mine in whom I had confided is quite firm on the point that I should leave a letter though. His point is that if I give them a reason, they have no cause to make up one.

I'm not sure I'd credit them not to make one up anyway.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I have a cure of souls for an area where most people do not have a practised faith. That breaks my heart.
Isn't that rather a presumption? Who gave you it? Did the people assent?

a) Yes.
b) It is shared with the Bishop, given by Christ.
c) A remarkable number. Until I do something to upset them.

Yet despite that is doesn't bother me too much that lots of people head off to other churches on a Sunday, some of which openly deny many essentials of the apostolic faith being oppressed by such heresies as Calvinism, Anabaptistism, Memorialism, Charismatic Restorationism and Hymn Sandwichism.

Having said that, this week I have felt protective over someone who has died in the parish. But that is more an issue of lack of communication.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Trouble was if you challenged him a) you were touching god's anointed.
[/QB]

Very bad model of ministry.

I may be Christ at the Altar, but I am not Christ when we are discussing what colour the new chairs should be at the back of Church.

Although sometimes I wish I could be.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

Trouble was if you challenged him a) you were touching god's anointed.
.....I am not Christ when we are discussing what colour the new chairs should be at the back of Church.

Although sometimes I wish I could be. [/QB]

Lol! I agree - but what makes you think that you are Christ at the altar? isn't chair choice spiritual too?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

For what it's worth (not much maybe), I sent a letter two months ago when my family had all but made its mind up to seek a call to another congregation. The issue had to do with loveless behavior on the part of the leadership. Mr. Lamb felt we'd done enough confronting (and that isn't his preferred style anyway) but I figured I owed something more to the Matthew 18 process before we and ours picked up and disappeared.

So I sent a letter, focusing on the one main issue and written with major prayer and as irenically as possible. I figured that would be it, and we'd be gone. I was rather shocked to get an urgent request to talk it over with the two leaders in question, me and Mr. Lamb (NOT a tribunal, more of a coffee with conversation). And they repented. We're taking baby steps toward a better way of getting along together, and there are still issues. But I'm glad I sent the letter, no matter how things turned out. (I'm also glad I didn't expect anything to come of the letter, so often nothing does.)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I have a cure of souls for an area where most people do not have a practised faith. That breaks my heart.
Isn't that rather a presumption? Who gave you it? Did the people assent?
a) Yes.
b) It is shared with the Bishop, given by Christ.
c) A remarkable number. Until I do something to upset them.

Yet despite that is doesn't bother me too much that lots of people head off to other churches on a Sunday, some of which openly deny many essentials of the apostolic faith being oppressed by such heresies as Calvinism, Anabaptistism, Memorialism, Charismatic Restorationism and Hymn Sandwichism.

Having said that, this week I have felt protective over someone who has died in the parish. But that is more an issue of lack of communication.

I'm intigued (really) by your understanding of your cure. Are you the only one called to have that cure or does it apply to the "dangerous heretic" priests of anabaptism???

It's an on the ground thought for me: the church of which I am a small cog is non anglican, yet with an anglican church in this village and also the next, the locals see Mark Tabernacle as "the village church." Is our minister/leader/pastor whatever he's called muscling in on the Anglican guy?

I think we'd rather disagree on a Bishop's authority to do anything other than pastor but I felt that way even when I was in the Anglican Communion.....

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Lol! I agree - but what makes you think that you are Christ at the altar?

Because it's the theological position of his particular branch of the church that he is. He's not just being vainglorious. He's using the accepted phrasing to describe what a priest does (which, granted, to an outsider, can often feel alien and bizarre, but is actually a theological position with history and that).

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Lol! I agree - but what makes you think that you are Christ at the altar?
Because it's the theological position of his particular branch of the church that he is. He's not just being vainglorious. He's using the accepted phrasing to describe what a priest does (which, granted, to an outsider, can often feel alien and bizarre, but is actually a theological position with history and that).

Thanks Wood!

I think I understand that position but don't really engage with it for the following reason.

I can't discriminate being at the altar or at the coalface, in the car or on the cricket pitch, As a believer I'm asked by God to offer a sacrifice all the time. Thus Philippians 2:13 "continue to work out..."

All of life is supposed to be an offering of worship and sacrifice. Sure Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Table/Love Feast is special as it is a communal act of proclamation, engagement and remembrance -- but it's not the only thing that Christ asks us to do ....

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
IME, the Holy Spirit often speaks though the many voices and actions of His children. Your decision to leave the congregation, taking your family's participation and contribution to the pocketbook perchance speaks volumes to the leadership that words set down on paper could not nearly express so cogently.

Ultimately, they are in His care; not yours. Your responsibility is towards the resources you've been given stewardship of - no more, no less.
OK, that's a fair point.

A minister friend of mine in whom I had confided is quite firm on the point that I should leave a letter though. His point is that if I give them a reason, they have no cause to make up one.

I'm not sure I'd credit them not to make one up anyway.

A letter gives closure, but all you need to tell them that you’re going, not why. The danger in giving too much information is that you can end up sounding like you’re trying to justify yourself to them and you really don’t have to do that. (As iGeek has so elegantly pointed out already). Keep it simple:

“After much prayer, the Wood family feels that the Lord is calling us to move to another church and explore new spiritual directions. We are grateful for our time here and will miss our many friends, but we are also excited about the future. God bless … blah, blah … Goodbye and thank you for the fish”.

What the leadership do with that is up to them. If they’ve got any sense, they’ll leave it there. If they make something up … Well, it’s their arse the Lord will be kicking for giving false testimony. [Big Grin]

I also snorted at the fact you’re going to be at the local Anglican for a bit. In exchange, I offer you the nugget that Mr T is in his final year of Baptist ministry training. Feel free to snort away at my expense in return!

Tubbs

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I also snorted at the fact you’re going to be at the local Anglican for a bit. In exchange, I offer you the nugget that Mr T is in his final year of Baptist ministry training. Feel free to snort away at my expense in return!

Tubbs [/QB]

Snort? Depends on which college! We ALL know that there's only one real Baptist College, the rest are but shadows, spirits, smoke in the wind

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I also snorted at the fact you’re going to be at the local Anglican for a bit. In exchange, I offer you the nugget that Mr T is in his final year of Baptist ministry training. Feel free to snort away at my expense in return!

Tubbs
Snort? Depends on which college! We ALL know that there's only one real Baptist College, the rest are but shadows, spirits, smoke in the wind [/QB]

Tubbs is referring more to our respective histories here. Back in the day — we're talking like nine or ten years ago here — I came across as a very firm, strident, forceful free church evangelical who got into many arguments with Anglicans both sensible and idiotic. From my posting history back then, one might consider me the Poster Least Likely To Turn Up at an Anglican Church.

In fact, I was never like that. But you play to your reputation sometimes.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Oh dear. As a minister, I would just hate, hate, hate to have a letter from a 'moving' parishioner. I'd feel like I was being dumped by text! But that's just me [Big Grin]

.
I'd be bound to take it horribly personally, whether it was meant to be so or not.

I would so much rather it was done over a chat and a cup of coffee just so I could see the face and demeanour of the person going and reassure myself that I hadn't done their faith some permanent damage and they were running away to get away from me! Insecure of me? You bet!

But I think it's quite natural for people to sometimes move churches, having done it twice myself - very amicably, no fireworks. And a letter would suggest that something negative was behind the move. I admit though, I'm desperately paranoid at times. [Paranoid]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I also snorted at the fact you’re going to be at the local Anglican for a bit. In exchange, I offer you the nugget that Mr T is in his final year of Baptist ministry training. Feel free to snort away at my expense in return!

Tubbs
Snort? Depends on which college! We ALL know that there's only one real Baptist College, the rest are but shadows, spirits, smoke in the wind
Tubbs is referring more to our respective histories here. Back in the day — we're talking like nine or ten years ago here — I came across as a very firm, strident, forceful free church evangelical who got into many arguments with Anglicans both sensible and idiotic. From my posting history back then, one might consider me the Poster Least Likely To Turn Up at an Anglican Church.

In fact, I was never like that. But you play to your reputation sometimes. [/QB]

I know you weren't, but this could be seen as evidence of God's very wicked sense of humour. [Two face]

ExclamationMark, he is at the college that is named after the people's preacher. Is that the one you mean?

Tubbs

[ 27. January 2011, 13:33: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

My church-leaving story:

My family and I had been members of a small pentecostal church going on 8 years in urban San Diego. A new pastor came along. Shortly, I realized that he had strange ideas. Whereas the former pastor had encouraged me in my educational and career aspirations, the new pastor expressed concern. I recall one conversation where he warned me about the dangers of temptation to take up with a "painted" female secretary (so off-base -- he should have warned me about my hot male co-workers). In the end, I sussed that he was misogynist, anti-education and wasn't comfortable with people who didn't express absolute certainty about their faith.

We ultimately bought our first home in an area that made it further involvement with that church logistically challenging. We took the opportunity to take our leave and ended up taking a sabbatical from church for about a year. It was wonderful and life-giving.

I never explained to the pastor why we were so glad to leave. I don't think he had the capability of taking it on board.

The church shut-down within 5 years and doesn't exist anymore.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I'm intigued (really) by your understanding of your cure. Are you the only one called to have that cure or does it apply to the "dangerous heretic" priests of anabaptism???

Oh its the hymnsandwichites who really concern me! All that Hymn / Prayer or reading stuff is vain repetition of the worse kind!

Where I am the ecumenical context is somewhat limited unless you count the JW's. Which I don't. However in another environment yes of course the cure is shared as much as people are willing to be part of it. Certainly in my last Parish many people were nominally Methodist rather than nominally Anglican.

So I think that in your context you should be working together.

Now there is a problem here that relates to how we deal with out theological differences. I have close friends that believe different things on lots of different sides of different theological fences. This is fine while we are not working together! Where problems occur ecumenically or within a congregation is how those things get applied.

In general I try not to be reactionary. And I try to make the point to my more evangelical friends that even though they may consider me pastorally 'liberal' in certain areas I consider them equally or more theologically revisionist in others.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
I think we'd rather disagree on a Bishop's authority to do anything other than pastor but I felt that way even when I was in the Anglican Communion.....

How do you feel about Restorationism's Apostles. The difference between ++Rowan and ++Terry strikes me as down to kit and actually authority and power. Rowan has more of the former and Terry more of the latter.

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Lol! I agree - but what makes you think that you are Christ at the altar?
Because it's the theological position of his particular branch of the church that he is. He's not just being vainglorious. He's using the accepted phrasing to describe what a priest does (which, granted, to an outsider, can often feel alien and bizarre, but is actually a theological position with history and that).
Thanks Wood!

I think I understand that position but don't really engage with it for the following reason.

I can't discriminate being at the altar or at the coalface, in the car or on the cricket pitch, As a believer I'm asked by God to offer a sacrifice all the time. Thus Philippians 2:13 "continue to work out..."

All of life is supposed to be an offering of worship and sacrifice. Sure Eucharist/Communion/Lord's Table/Love Feast is special as it is a communal act of proclamation, engagement and remembrance -- but it's not the only thing that Christ asks us to do ....

You are of course theologically correct. But I was making the point that just because people respect my sacerdotal role doesn't mean that I am 'untouchable God's anointed'. The sacrament of Ordination does not mean that I get every pastoral, personal or managerial decision correct . Which can be how 'Leadership' is seen in some peoples eyes.

The opposite error can be where those God has called are completely stripped of the authority to lead and become chaplains to congregations. Although in a rural setting there has to be a balance between lay leadership and ordained leadership in each community.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tubbs:

ExclamationMark, he is at the college that is named after the people's preacher. Is that the one you mean?

Tubbs {/QUOTE]

It most certainly is .... was there a few years ago myself lol

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Oh dear. As a minister, I would just hate, hate, hate to have a letter from a 'moving' parishioner. I'd feel like I was being dumped by text! But that's just me .
I'd be bound to take it horribly personally, whether it was meant to be so or not. - I'm desperately paranoid at times.

Why are we (ministers) so often like this? It doesn't strike me as professional or pastoral or godly.

Shouldn't we have it beaten out of us at college?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

1. So I think that in your context you should be working together.

2. How do you feel about Restorationism's Apostles. The difference between ++Rowan and ++Terry strikes me as down to kit and actually authority and power. Rowan has more of the former and Terry more of the latter.

3. ....my sacerdotal role doesn't mean that I am 'untouchable God's anointed'. The sacrament of Ordination does not mean that I get every pastoral, personal or managerial decision correct . Which can be how 'Leadership' is seen in some peoples eyes.

Thanks Edward!

1. What if the theological gulf is too wide? the envy (of a growing cong) too great? The unwillingness too severe aka hatred of all things non anglican?

2. I don't give any credence to John Virgo. Never did like his way of playing snooker. Did he beat Rowan then?

3. I wouldn't understand a whole of life witness to mean that. Like you I accept the need for a balance between autocracy and democracy. Whatever your gift is - use it - but not at anyone's expense and for God's glory.

I'm not convinced either (sorry!) that ordination is a sacrament (a grace if you like). It's more than a job or vocation - it's the public recognition of certain giftings and perhaps we should all have a rite to ordain every saint!

I'm not restorationist and the only sandwich I'm interested in is cheese and pickle....

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

ExclamationMark, he is at the college that is named after the people's preacher. Is that the one you mean?

Tubbs

I never knew there was a famous preacher named Bristol. Just fancy ...

I also went to said establishment. But I prefer to refer myself as an alumnus of King's College, London (which I am also) - unless it's to prove my credentials in certain Baptist environments.

Long live the Blessed St. Nigel of Ansdell.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Wood, I seem to remember you posting once that you used to attend a CofE church when back in Creamtealand on visits. So it's not so odd....

Back in the days of our youth, I'm sure many shipmates - like me - used to visit all sorts of churches, even if only to establish that you really do want to stay with the one you already attend. You're maybe just doing it a little later than some.

From tomorrow onwards, you can visit the archive of edition no. 7714 of the 'Church Times' and search for the title 'Why the Church should be more like poetry'. It's an article by Revd. Rachel Mann (poet-in-residence at Manchester Cathedral), which might interest you.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Oh dear. As a minister, I would just hate, hate, hate to have a letter from a 'moving' parishioner. I'd feel like I was being dumped by text! But that's just me .
I'd be bound to take it horribly personally, whether it was meant to be so or not. - I'm desperately paranoid at times.
Why are we (ministers) so often like this? It doesn't strike me as professional or pastoral or godly.

Shouldn't we have it beaten out of us at college?

I think you're confusing how I would feel with what my active response would be. And I don't particularly want to have beaten out of me that part of me that keeps me humble and reminds me of the responsibility I have as a church leader, despite my failures and flawed-ness.

Though I would be quite happy to lose the paranoia! Don't think a couple of years in college is going to do that though, do you?

I'm pretty sure that to have a partial response of 'have I done something wrong? Am I responsible for someone's bad experience of Church?' is actually more of a positive thing in a church leader than otherwise. I genuinelly would want the leaving person to feel as positively as possible about their move and to be as encouraging as I could be.

Not entirely sure why you see this as being unpastoral and ungodly.

And I believe that, bearing that in mind, one is less likely to have a truly helpful and thorough dialogue on such a thing via the hit and run method of a letter. Mind you, I suppose there are some ministers one would not like to sit down with and say 'I'm going because of.......'. And the letter method is probably so much less demanding and less stressful in those situations. I can understand that.

I think I would still prefer to be spoken to rather than addressed through the post like a public corporation! That's how I would approach it if I were moving on; and is in fact how I did approach it when I did move on from two previous churches as a worshipper. But then in those places the clergy involved were friends, or at least, known to me pretty well, and I wouldn't have dreamt of writing them a letter under any circumstance when just popping over and saying 'hi, this is what I'd like to talk about...' was so much more natural and effective.

I appreciate that's not everybody's option.

[ 27. January 2011, 16:20: Message edited by: Anselmina ]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But in general USA churches are eager to involve people. I've known people to land on Vestry who have been in this country only few months!

I know this kind of thing happens, and happens frequently, but in most cases I think it's not a good sign of organizational health.

If someone shows up and starts making "what do I have to do to get on Vestry? How long do I have to wait?" noises, I would immediately start seeing red flags all over the place. Does not play well with others, has a personal agenda, etc.

And for the organization to tap a six-month's newbie for a top management role ... yeah, I know there often aren't volunteers, but that's bad both from a potential "volunteer burnout" standpoint (too much/too fast), and also, it's not enough time for it to shake out to see if Newbie really "plays well with others", especially once given actual power. God knows I've seen lots of "nice" people turn "not-nice" once they get some (even small) authority.

As a data point, six months' participation at my parish is the theoretical cut-off for VOTING in the annual meeting.

I can think of limited circumstances under which it would be ok - I'm thinking of our former Senior Warden who moved back to Blighty and probably got tapped early on in his new parish because he is an organizational/management genius (and has great references, personal and professional).

quote:
I've known people to start a Bible study within weeks of arriving at a church.

One of these things is not like the other. [Smile]

This kind of thing is a much better IMO "way to get involved" for a new person.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Oh dear. As a minister, I would just hate, hate, hate to have a letter from a 'moving' parishioner. I'd feel like I was being dumped by text! But that's just me .
I'd be bound to take it horribly personally, whether it was meant to be so or not. - I'm desperately paranoid at times.
Why are we (ministers) so often like this? It doesn't strike me as professional or pastoral or godly.

Shouldn't we have it beaten out of us at college?

But immensely human - and we can't get that humanity taken out. Even if self awareness helps us manage our outer reactions professionally we are still vulnerable to our weaknesses

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Anselmina posts:

quote:
I think I would still prefer to be spoken to rather than addressed through the post like a public corporation! That's how I would approach it if I were moving on; and is in fact how I did approach it when I did move on from two previous churches as a worshipper. But then in those places the clergy involved were friends, or at least, known to me pretty well, and I wouldn't have dreamt of writing them a letter under any circumstance when just popping over and saying 'hi, this is what I'd like to talk about...' was so much more natural and effective.

I appreciate that's not everybody's option.

It wasn't in my case, as the cleric involved has a temper and had also developed an approach of delegating unpleasant (to him) meetings to a committee of "elders." In any case, my letter was unacknowledged and unanswered, and sources have informed me that the reasons for my departure were ... misinterpreted...

When dealing with dysfunctional and abusive personalities, formal confrontation of their superior to engage a review process is sometimes the only way. This was one of those circumstances, and I fault myself for not having done so much earlier. The whole episode, which featured several years of misrepresentation and (let's call it) intellectual dishonesty, has done much to undermine my trust in the clergy as such-- although I still retain much respect for individuals.

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think I would still prefer to be spoken to rather than addressed through the post like a public corporation! That's how I would approach it if I were moving on; and is in fact how I did approach it when I did move on from two previous churches as a worshipper. But then in those places the clergy involved were friends, or at least, known to me pretty well, and I wouldn't have dreamt of writing them a letter under any circumstance when just popping over and saying 'hi, this is what I'd like to talk about...' was so much more natural and effective.

You are obviously not a natural letter writer then. I am. If I have something important to say to someone (especially if it is potentially unpleasant), I don't trust myself to get it right face to face. I would rather write it down, considering my words carefully. Then after the letter or email has been sent, perhaps just then I might be willing to discuss it. But if its something difficult and unpleasant, like leaving a church, I would really rather just leave it at that.

This applies within the family as well - I have been known to email my husband or my kids when I wanted to say something important and uncomfortable for instance, its not just reserved for ministers. Although I certainly have and would use this method in a church situation. For someone like me it is better than talking face to face, at least as a starter.

(Interestingly, I sometimes also prefer to receive difficult news in written form, rather than delivered verbally. That way one can skim to the end to take in how it ends, then digest it slowly at ones own pace.)

I think that those ministers who say they want to know why people are going, in order to be assured that they will not continue to make the same mistakes with others, are almost certainly not the same ones that people may feel unwilling to talk to.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
You are obviously not a natural letter writer then. I am. If I have something important to say to someone (especially if it is potentially unpleasant), I don't trust myself to get it right face to face. I would rather write it down, considering my words carefully. Then after the letter or email has been sent, perhaps just then I might be willing to discuss it. But if its something difficult and unpleasant, like leaving a church, I would really rather just leave it at that.

This applies within the family as well - I have been known to email my husband or my kids when I wanted to say something important and uncomfortable for instance, its not just reserved for ministers. Although I certainly have and would use this method in a church situation. For someone like me it is better than talking face to face, at least as a starter.

(Interestingly, I sometimes also prefer to receive difficult news in written form, rather than delivered verbally. That way one can skim to the end to take in how it ends, then digest it slowly at ones own pace.)

I totally agree with this ... writing a letter seems like the kindest and most natural way to break bad news to me, because it's the way I feel most natural giving and receiving news. It didn't even occur to me that the recipient might find a letter cold and impersonal, and prefer a face-to-face talk (something I would find almost impossible).

Tangentially, Gracious Rebel, I am just the same as you about receiving news in print as well. Twice in the last year we've had the misfortune of having a colleague die suddenly at my place of work. The first time it happened my boss couldn't find my phone number and apologized profusely for having to deliver such sad news via email. The second time, he woke me in the early morning with a phone call, and I was left in shock trying to think of something appropriate to say, thinking "Why couldnt' you have put this in an email?!?!?"

I can only extrapolate from this that if I were in a position of leadership in a church and someone wanted to let me know why they were leaving, I would much rather receive a letter than a phone call or visit -- but clearly not everyone's the same. One of those cases where the Golden Rule doesn't seem quite adequate.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I wrote a Dear John letter to the church of my childhood when I jumped the fence to another Lutheran church body. At the time I was very angry and frustrated with my childhood denomination, of which my hometown congregation was like a highly condensed, extra-strength version -- and even though I hadn't been back to the old home congo except for Christmas Eve for several years, and didn't even know its new pastor, I felt it necessary to effect some closure to this chapter in my spiritual life.

But I didn't want to come off as too strident or angry, especially since my parents were members. So I wrote a very polite letter asking to have my name taken off their roll because I had become a member of a congregation in [what is now the ELCA]. I added some mild statement about finding my new church home a more authentic reflection of my beliefs, but left it at that. And I thanked the congregation for the quality of my religious formation.

No one ever contacted me from my old church, nor did anyone mention the letter to my parents.

For me it was an important way to formally end my affiliation with this congregation/denomination and get on with my spiritual life. Had I simply slunk away, I'm not sure I wouldn't have carried more mental baggage about it for a longer time.

On the other hand, at another point in my life I became very angry with the Church, big C, and because of it became an ever-more infrequent worshipper at my then-church. But I never really told anyone why. That eventually led to a several-year Christianity hiatus. Maybe if I'd expressed myself, even in a letter (I'm not too good with face-to-face confrontation), someone might have been able to address some of my frustrations.)

[ 27. January 2011, 18:48: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

1. What if the theological gulf is too wide? the envy (of a growing cong) too great? The unwillingness too severe aka hatred of all things non anglican?

2. I don't give any credence to John Virgo. Never did like his way of playing snooker. Did he beat Rowan then?

3. I wouldn't understand a whole of life witness to mean that. Like you I accept the need for a balance between autocracy and democracy. Whatever your gift is - use it - but not at anyone's expense and for God's glory.

I'm not convinced either (sorry!) that ordination is a sacrament (a grace if you like). It's more than a job or vocation - it's the public recognition of certain giftings and perhaps we should all have a rite to ordain every saint!

I'm not restorationist and the only sandwich I'm interested in is cheese and pickle....

1. I have seen this not work several ways. Even between Churches who are pretty much doing the same thing the same way. Sometimes I think it is more to do with personalities than theology,

2. Rowan won but Benedict took the final. Ask
Captain Sensible

3. In a sense we probably share a similar view of leadership with different language and sacramental understanding. Both are along way from 'Don't touch God's Anointed'.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think you're confusing how I would feel with what my active response would be. And I don't particularly want to have beaten out of me that part of me that keeps me humble and reminds me of the responsibility I have as a church leader, despite my failures and flawed-ness.

No.

It is how we all feel.

I was being self critical and you were in the crossfire.

The problem really is how we react when wounded.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've known people to land on Vestry who have been in this country only few months!

in most cases I think it's not a good sign of organizational health.

quote:
I've known people to start a Bible study within weeks of arriving at a church.
One of these things is not like the other. This kind of thing is a much better IMO "way to get involved" for a new person.

Tee hee, some might say the opposite, that someone on vestry with off-base ideas can be voted down on every proposal and rendered harmless, but a Bible study leader with off-base ideas can do a lot of harm.

I guess there are no easy or consistent answers to church in a mobile society.

Posted by Katherine777 (# 15517) on :

Wood, I'm so glad you started this thread-- I've been reading with interest.

I'm on the side of those who say don't write a letter. Write something ahead of time if you want a way to think through your ideas and test the delivery, but say what you need to say in person and make eye contact. Your voice and body language will speak volumes about how you feel and convey your sincerity in a way even the best letter can't. Plus, some people (maybe not all) will see it as insulting if you know them well but deliver this news in an impersonal way.

I have not yet left a church, but have really thought about it. If I leave, it will be because I just feel lost... it's been about 2 years and the social component of it is like inviting yourself to someone else's party over and over again. I'm really not sure if a) I just don't belong there for whatever reason, b) people are just really busy and distracted, or c) this is a normal experience for everyone from time to time. Things I can envision to get more connected haven't really worked out-- everyone is super friendly but there is no depth (yet?). But the nice thing is I'm pretty sure no one will really notice if I decide to go, so no letters or difficult conversations! I'll stick with it a bit longer though...

One other comment though, about your reason for leaving-- it's admirable that you're considering such a major change in your life on principal (one with which I wholeheartedly agree), but why is this difference an absolute breaking point? Did it get personal in some way and wasn't handled well? You might in some ways be in a unique position to hold a different view and explain and advertise your position in a loving and reasonable way to people who don't often hear that particular message. Though emotionally challenging, it's much more noble than being someone in my shoes, who is more or less surrounded by people with similar social opinions. Do you think the leadership can change?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
Your primary responsibility is the spiritual care of yourself and your family and you're taking this decision after careful deliberation.

To some extent. And to friends, especially Christian friends. I can't see how I could regularly attend church unless any of my friends who would want to come to church at all with me would be able to attend.

I have stopped going to some churches and started going to others. I think that in each case either I haven't felt I had any roots in the church I was leaving, or else I was moving out of the area altogether and so didn't really have a choice about continuing at the same church. So I don't have much to contribute in the way of personal testimony.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Katherine777:
I have not yet left a church, but have really thought about it. If I leave, it will be because I just feel lost... it's been about 2 years and the social component of it is like inviting yourself to someone else's party over and over again. I'm really not sure if a) I just don't belong there for whatever reason, b) people are just really busy and distracted, or c) this is a normal experience for everyone from time to time. Things I can envision to get more connected haven't really worked out-- everyone is super friendly but there is no depth (yet?). But the nice thing is I'm pretty sure no one will really notice if I decide to go, so no letters or difficult conversations! I'll stick with it a bit longer though...

I'd agree with your reason (c) that this is a normal experience for everyone occasionally but if it's been like that for two years then I'd sure be thinking about leaving! Everyone being super friendly is great but I think more is needed, and if you're not feeling included (despite your best efforts) then maybe it is time to move on.

A vital part of the Christian experience is, in my view, having a group of close companions with whom you can share pretty much anything - all your troubles, fears, triumphs and dreams for the future. If that's not happening with people at my church, then where else...?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Katherine777:
Wood, I'm so glad you started this thread-- I've been reading with interest.

I'm on the side of those who say don't write a letter. Write something ahead of time if you want a way to think through your ideas and test the delivery, but say what you need to say in person and make eye contact. Your voice and body language will speak volumes about how you feel and convey your sincerity in a way even the best letter can't. Plus, some people (maybe not all) will see it as insulting if you know them well but deliver this news in an impersonal way.

I don't think I could stand a sit down. Much of the advice I am getting now from friends suggests having a sit-down, but I can't bring myself to even contemplate that.

The problem is, I might get angry. And when I get angry, I get... mean. I think it has to be a letter.

It doesn't help that there's a lot of hurt and pain and a massive lack of trust that aren't actually the reasons for leaving (if they were, I'd have gone years ago. BTW, my ceasing to be a prolific poster on SoF around 2004-5 and my problems with my church bursting out like cancers on my faith at much the same time are not wholly unconnected). I don't want to go into those things.

quote:
One other comment though, about your reason for leaving-- it's admirable that you're considering such a major change in your life on principle (one with which I wholeheartedly agree), but why is this difference an absolute breaking point?

Because I owe it to my friends. They're gay. They get this sort of shit every. single. day of their lives, and it matters that someone stands with them.

quote:
You might in some ways be in a unique position to hold a different view and explain and advertise your position in a loving and reasonable way to people who don't often hear that particular message.

Put it this way: I was run out of student work because they didn't want a student worker who was friends with progressives.

I have tried. For years. It hasn't worked.

quote:
Do you think the leadership can change?

No.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Wood: Because I owe it to my friends. They're gay. They get this sort of shit every. single. day of their lives, and it matters that someone stands with them.

In that case, it wouldn't take much soul-searching for me to leave the church, no matter how long I'd been there. I'd be out before someone could say "Leviticus".

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Wood: Because I owe it to my friends. They're gay. They get this sort of shit every. single. day of their lives, and it matters that someone stands with them.
In that case, it wouldn't take much soul-searching for me to leave the church, no matter how long I'd been there. I'd be out before someone could say "Leviticus".

Quite. I'm not proud. I'm ashamed it took me so long.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Nothing to be ashamed of.

We are all creatures of habit, and we all crave approval; especially if we believe that we have been effective in our ministry, whatever it might have been.

Least of all from the Almighty, it seems..

m

Posted by chalky (# 143) on :

It's probably all been said, but... sounds like it is a bit of a combo, rather than just a single issue. If the church was more like what I would consider to be healthy, your progressive connections and 'differences' to the general run of convictions in the church would be open, part of a conversation regarding the mystery of faith, and you would not be, or feel, 'run out'.

I say 'what I would consider to be' because I know there are those who would feel that 'party lines' should be everything, and that taking a strong stand on single issues is positive. Personally I reject that. However, I think there CAN be possible for churches with particular 'party lines' to accommodate (or even welcome) dissent within; it should be OK to challenge or disagree without having to feel (or be) rejected by the church. I think church communities are far better served by leadership who are able to accommodate (or better still, present!) differing points of view, and be clear about why they hold to the one they do.

In the absence of that accommodation, if your considered convictions are unwelcome, you are in effect unwelcome. What a very devastating process to realise that - and particularly difficult when the church is not only represented by its leaders, but by everyone who is part of it, some of whom doubtless love, appreciate and learn from your contributions both as people and as thinkers (I am including Mrs Wood in this, I don't know the woodlets well enough to comment!!). A necessary but utterly shitty thing to have to do. This kind of echoes what Birdie said (and probably others!) about the relational and theological reasons. Probably a lot of your relational stuff is good, but the theological stuff (and the relational stuff with leaders, by the sounds) makes it impossible to stay.

Birdie, you are welcome to the phrase! I think being out of step with the general theology can be absorbed, accepted and even encouraged (uber healthy). Whatever the 'party lines' or the Generally Encouraged Views, knowing dissent or questions or depth is supported rather than rejected is important. And I think that certain church cultures are more given to Ousting By Disapproval, which is basically a silencing tool, which is in my opinion potentially abusive. Which is not something to hang around in, really.

So Wood I would say it is of course good to stay if you can, not just because leaving is so painful, but because things change, and being part of something can support positive change (both for the church and for yourself). So, good on you for sticking for ages and ages after the going had got tough, and also good on you for knowing when to draw the line. I don't think the situation calls for regrets on either count; it wasn't necessarily going to go this way, but it has, so you can only do what you gotta do now. I for one am really, really looking forward to you hanging out with the anglicans [Biased]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Hi Chalks. I didn't thank you for your helpful and perceptive post before.

quote:
Originally posted by chalky:
It's probably all been said, but... sounds like it is a bit of a combo, rather than just a single issue. If the church was more like what I would consider to be healthy, your progressive connections and 'differences' to the general run of convictions in the church would be open, part of a conversation regarding the mystery of faith, and you would not be, or feel, 'run out'.

Well... yeah, OK. But if that simple closedown of dialogue and lack of honesty was the thing to make me give up on the place, I would have left a long time ago. I didn't. In the end, it had to be the principle.

quote:
I say 'what I would consider to be' because I know there are those who would feel that 'party lines' should be everything, and that taking a strong stand on single issues is positive. Personally I reject that. However, I think there CAN be possible for churches with particular 'party lines' to accommodate (or even welcome) dissent within; it should be OK to challenge or disagree without having to feel (or be) rejected by the church. I think church communities are far better served by leadership who are able to accommodate (or better still, present!) differing points of view, and be clear about why they hold to the one they do.

I think that for some of the people in my church, they can do that. To an extent. on some issues.

FWIW, someone in church confronted the minister who gave the offending sermon on Sunday and he told her that she was wrong. So on Wednesday she bumped into him again, and he asked her if she'd given it any more thought, as in, "have you come around to the truth yet"?

Make of that what you will. But she won't have to leave. She won't be denied communion.

If I was silenced, it was because I was too unafraid to express my views, and did not moderate my talk, and was combative and loud in my viewpoints. They might have been wrong to remove me from where I was, but I was being a bit of an arse.

You know what I'm like when I get going. I have a reputation for being awkward and combative. I rub people up the wrong way. I do. It's me. It's who I am. It doesn't make my problems completely invalid, but I am not sure I deserve all the sympathy I am getting.

Anyway, I am going because my friends couldn't be made welcome as part of that community. And although my decision is informed by the fact that I cannot have an honest dialogue with the leadership, in the end it's the point of principle.

quote:
In the absence of that accommodation, if your considered convictions are unwelcome, you are in effect unwelcome.

Yeah. But I think that I have worked very hard in the last few years to make myself more unwelcome than I could otherwise have been.

quote:
What a very devastating process to realise that - and particularly difficult when the church is not only represented by its leaders, but by everyone who is part of it, some of whom doubtless love, appreciate and learn from your contributions both as people and as thinkers (I am including Mrs Wood in this, I don't know the woodlets well enough to comment!!). A necessary but utterly shitty thing to have to do. This kind of echoes what Birdie said (and probably others!) about the relational and theological reasons. Probably a lot of your relational stuff is good, but the theological stuff (and the relational stuff with leaders, by the sounds) makes it impossible to stay.

Yeah.

quote:
So, good on you for sticking for ages and ages after the going had got tough, and also good on you for knowing when to draw the line. I don't think the situation calls for regrets on either count; it wasn't necessarily going to go this way, but it has, so you can only do what you gotta do now. I for one am really, really looking forward to you hanging out with the anglicans

Some of them are really weird.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

First, a mea culpa. I have hopped around a number of churches in this area; all because of various really important issues. Once was because there were no youth close to the age of one son who was wanting to be involved in a youth group. There was also the fact that there were a number of folks in the church who had no compunction about telling racial jokes.

Well, we would get to a new church and there would be some other problem. The group ethic held that _____ (Sorry, can't use that word. Please excuse me.) those people could not be ministers, etc. Also, there was this guy who went on and on about his sex addiction . . .

Go to another church and the minister is great, but the Sunday School classes are like attending 12 step programs. And so forth and so forth . . .

Churches are collectives of people. People are people, pretty much everywhere they gather; even in places where they are supposed to be on their best behavior. There is always gonna be something objectionable.

Perhaps, as C.S. Lewis suggested, part of the church experience is getting past your issues with individual members (groups) of the congregation and realizing we are all imperfect people trying to find God.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

Perhaps, as C.S. Lewis suggested, part of the church experience is getting past your issues with individual members (groups) of the congregation and realizing we are all imperfect people trying to find God.

Well, yes. I think I said that in the OP. But where do we draw the line, then? Where do we stop and say, "enough"?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I am suggesting you do not draw the line. (Absent the minister removing a mask and revealing horns, a pointed tongue, and a strangely ,luminescent eye. Or, everybody leaving church, donning their klan robes and burning a cross.)

Stay and work at change for the better.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But where do we draw the line, then? Where do we stop and say, "enough"?

When the prejudice is getting worse, not better.
At our old place, we could ignore it for a while, but it grew and grew.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am suggesting you do not draw the line. (Absent the minister removing a mask and revealing horns, a pointed tongue, and a strangely ,luminescent eye. Or, everybody leaving church, donning their klan robes and burning a cross.)

Stay and work at change for the better.

God, I wish I felt you were right.

You know, I did. And dear friends who once gave me this advice and did so for years and years have finally said, "OK, you're right, go."

For years. I think that if I do, I will either harm myself and my family or harm the church. It has taken years to come to this decision and I am not happy about it. This isn't about church hopping. It's about the principle.

[ 28. January 2011, 12:23: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

Perhaps, as C.S. Lewis suggested, part of the church experience is getting past your issues with individual members (groups) of the congregation and realizing we are all imperfect people trying to find God.
Well, yes. I think I said that in the OP. But where do we draw the line, then? Where do we stop and say, "enough"?

When you can’t think of a single positive reason to be there other than because you always have ... [Confused]

Most of us have a deal breaker in church life. If you truely believe that cannot stay in a congregation where the leadership believes and preaches blah, then it's right to go.

Tubbs

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

This is a reflection. I won't claim to have read everything above but some.

It seems to mean that what actually is occurring here is a conflict of loyalties. There is loyalty to the congregation and loyalty to your friends. I note your friends aren't making an issue of it, but the dissonance with who they are and who the church is, is.

It therefore may be worth making a point made at my membership service, that was:

Firstly we are part of the whole body of the Christ, the Church catholic*.
Secondly we were choosing to be part of a specific branch of the Church catholic i.e. the Reformed tradition
Thirdly and only after those two, we were coming members of a specific congregation

To decide you can not longer belong to a specific congregation, is not to reject either the tradition nor the Church catholic. This needs holding onto because by walking away from the specific local manifestation of that, we move away also from the immediate manifestation of the church in our experience. It is a rupture in the experience but not in the reality of the Church catholic.

Jengie

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

As best I can tell no one has yet posted the old chestnut "If you find the perfect church, don't join it. You'll only ruin it."

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
...I don't think I could stand a sit down. Much of the advice I am getting now from friends suggests having a sit-down, but I can't bring myself to even contemplate that.

...

Whether you write, call, or have a sit-down is up to you. What you want to say is up to you. Advice from friends and family is just that, advice, and you are free to pick and choose what parts of it are right for you.

If you don't want a big deal made of it, probably a letter is best - it provides the opportunity to say what you want to, in carefully chosen words, and to not say what you don't want to, without having to plead the 5th. If you think they know your position and would be unwilling to reconsider their position on the matter, you get to decide whether to raise it or not. Having read this thread, I am guessing they know, or are likely able to assume, what your reason is.

But a letter, or something, as others have said, provides closure - for you and for the church.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
It seems to mean that what actually is occurring here is a conflict of loyalties. There is loyalty to the congregation and loyalty to your friends. I note your friends aren't making an issue of it, but the dissonance with who they are and who the church is, is.

Fair comment.

quote:
It therefore may be worth making a point made at my membership service, that was:
Firstly we are part of the whole body of the Christ, the Church catholic*.
Secondly we were choosing to be part of a specific branch of the Church catholic i.e. the Reformed tradition
Thirdly and only after those two, we were coming members of a specific congregation

To decide you can not longer belong to a specific congregation, is not to reject either the tradition nor the Church catholic.

OK. Yes. I agree.

quote:
This needs holding onto because by walking away from the specific local manifestation of that, we move away also from the immediate manifestation of the church in our experience. It is a rupture in the experience but not in the reality of the Church catholic.

I think this is a very helpful point to make. Thank you.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
As best I can tell no one has yet posted the old chestnut "If you find the perfect church, don't join it. You'll only ruin it."

Sine, I am so glad that you are still here.

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
...I don't think I could stand a sit down. Much of the advice I am getting now from friends suggests having a sit-down, but I can't bring myself to even contemplate that.

...
Whether you write, call, or have a sit-down is up to you. What you want to say is up to you. Advice from friends and family is just that, advice, and you are free to pick and choose what parts of it are right for you.

If you don't want a big deal made of it, probably a letter is best - it provides the opportunity to say what you want to, in carefully chosen words, and to not say what you don't want to, without having to plead the 5th. If you think they know your position and would be unwilling to reconsider their position on the matter, you get to decide whether to raise it or not. Having read this thread, I am guessing they know, or are likely able to assume, what your reason is.

But a letter, or something, as others have said, provides closure - for you and for the church.

I've actually started drafting one.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

At one time I was a regular attender at a tiny rural church. Friendly, local, built into the rhythm of the community. The preaching was challenging, but sometimes we need a challenge. I certainly didn't agree with everything that I heard and sometimes it was uncomfortable, but the congregation was lovely. As the preaching got more hardline and I started to think about leaving, I felt that I didn't want to let them down. There were so few people there on a Sunday and I was the youngest there by about 20 years, so they'd certainly notice my absence. So I stayed.

Until the sunday when we were told (explicitly) that Muslims and Buddhists, Roman Catholics and Anglicans were GOING TO HELL.
It was strongly implied that the only people who weren't on their way down were in that chapel that morning. The following weekend my RC Aunt and Cousin were coming to stay and I knew I couldn't inflict this bigotry on them.

Next sunday we went to a church of the same denomination in town and were warmly welcomed. I stayed for 4 years (until I moved house) and it became a really important part of my faith journey. The preaching was always challenging and often uncomfortable - and I can remember some of the sermons today.

I wouldn't have left if I hadn't been forced to consider my Aunt and Cousin - and leaving was (for me) the right thing to do.

I don't think that we should feel too cosy or comfortable in church neccessarily - but if we feel that we couldn't take a friend or neighbour along, because they may be bullied or picked on, then it may be time to go.

Anne

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am suggesting you do not draw the line. (Absent the minister removing a mask and revealing horns, a pointed tongue, and a strangely ,luminescent eye. Or, everybody leaving church, donning their klan robes and burning a cross.)

Stay and work at change for the better.

Not if staying is harming you.

Or if you've stayed and stayed and nothing changes at all.

In a way, his church is putting on the klan hoods.

I have, in a past city, stayed way too long, friends moved as a group to a different church (same denomination), I stayed, became increasingly marginalized because the clergy were increasingly moving to "God is dead or at least unknowable and therefore irrelevant" while I was increasingly moving to "God is intriguing and amazing." The mis-fit did me no good and my presence did the church no good, I would have been much better off at a different church with friends pursuing God in ways I could relate to, and the church would have been unaffected by my departure. I consider my staying at that church a major mistake in my spiritual journey.

There is no perfect church, but there are churches that are a terrible misfit for any one individual.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

There is no perfect church, but there are churches that are a terrible misfit for any one individual.

But it has mostly to be what is right. Rather than about what I want.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Churches are collectives of people. People are people, pretty much everywhere they gather; even in places where they are supposed to be on their best behavior. There is always gonna be something objectionable.

OTOH, there is such a thing as esprit de corps, and some of those corps out there are pretty rotten. A congregation has a collective personality - it's not only an agglomeration of individuals with a name stuck to the door.

(Unfortunately every single congregation is convinced it is "friendly". [brick wall]

)

Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :

The only time I've left a church for reasons other than moving was because I was treated as less than a full member.

A big reason for that was my singleness. When I was in my 20's and single, everything was cool. But when I got well into my 30's and was still single, it became very clear that was held against me.

I did not take that well. And the resulting conflict became so stressful, I asked the leaders of the church to leave in peace. And so I left.

And I still think I did the right thing. God certainly blessed that decision and led me to a much better church for me.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Someone joined our choir from another church - he was married to a woman priest and sang in the choir of a church where the vicar didn't agree with women priests. It must have been a difficult situation, and I'm surprised he stayed so long.

The vicar said if the CofE elected women bishops then he'd leave. To which the choir man's reply was, 'Well I wish they'd hurry up then!'

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

There are so many good and insightful posts here that I don't know where to start! I do have a question, though:

Has anyone ever left a church for a reason unrelated to its teachings or theology, only to see that all of that stuff is wrong too? I have, in more than one case. One was when I broke up with someone...it was a long-distance relationship, so once it was over, there was no reason to go back to their (baptistpentefundagelical) church. Since I was then 'at a distance', I was able to see more clearly just *how* wrong and/or harmful the things they taught really were. Some people who know me from long ago or from other forums have heard the story ad nauseum, but a lot of the teachings were of the 'Word of Faith' or "Prosperity Gospel' variety...basically the things Fineline mentioned on the first page. Anyway, that wasn't the only problem. I didn't realize how prejudiced the beliefs were against gay people, people of other religions, etc. before, which I simply cannot deal with. I'm not about to tell my Muslim friends that they're going to Hell or that my gay brother had better 'repent'... [Projectile]

Ugh, I never believed this bullshit anyway, but I can't be around people who do, I'm sorry.

I also didn't see how interested they were in pushing people into a box-especially I as a woman. Stupid, I know, but some things look clearer from a distance. The damage to my faith was done. The fact that *I* was just like the woman Fineline mentioned (with an illness) certainly didn't help! I'm much happier now anyway, in a good church and getting the medical treatment I was condemned for seeking.

I didn't mean to say this much but I was wondering if anyone else had left a church for reasons unrelated to beliefs, but later saw how they should have left a long time earlier.

[ 28. January 2011, 19:09: Message edited by: Beautiful Dreamer ]

Posted by Beautiful Dreamer (# 10880) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Wood: Because I owe it to my friends. They're gay. They get this sort of shit every. single. day of their lives, and it matters that someone stands with them.
In that case, it wouldn't take much soul-searching for me to leave the church, no matter how long I'd been there. I'd be out before someone could say "Leviticus".
Quite. I'm not proud. I'm ashamed it took me so long.

Sorry for the double post, but I completely agree with this. This is partly why I chose my current denomination...'Piskies don't teach that crap.

And Wood, I wonder if a compromise might work? Write the letter to get the initial feelings out, don't send it, and then decide from there what you want to do? I'm saying this because I can be pretty irrational when angry, and getting the feelings out in a private setting helps me approach the other person in a more calm and productive way.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think when it comes to deciding whether to stay and be a force for the better, or go and better yourself--well, you have to keep in mind that you are not the Messiah. You have a breaking point, and it will come earlier than His. Do what good you can, but if you sense that you are about to become a casualty, it's time to get out. A destroyed Christian benefits nobody.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
You are obviously not a natural letter writer then. I am. If I have something important to say to someone (especially if it is potentially unpleasant), I don't trust myself to get it right face to face. I would rather write it down, considering my words carefully. Then after the letter or email has been sent, perhaps just then I might be willing to discuss it. But if its something difficult and unpleasant, like leaving a church, I would really rather just leave it at that.

This applies within the family as well - I have been known to email my husband or my kids when I wanted to say something important and uncomfortable for instance, its not just reserved for ministers. Although I certainly have and would use this method in a church situation. For someone like me it is better than talking face to face, at least as a starter.

(Interestingly, I sometimes also prefer to receive difficult news in written form, rather than delivered verbally. That way one can skim to the end to take in how it ends, then digest it slowly at ones own pace.)

I think that those ministers who say they want to know why people are going, in order to be assured that they will not continue to make the same mistakes with others, are almost certainly not the same ones that people may feel unwilling to talk to.

I've had a chuckle at your conclusion that I'm not a 'natural letter writer! Actually it's because my first response to most things is writing letters and such like that, over the years, I've had to adapt to being more face to face with my communications. I recognize within myself, you see, a tendancy to keep people and problems at arm's length by using letters, memos etc. And I've been challenged on that.

Even now I struggle against decanting as much of my relations with others onto paper (or e-paper) as possible; rather than mediating ideas, instructions, feedback etc to a human face, or even on the phone.

Having said that I generally respond in the first instance in kind to things: eg a phone call receives a phone call, an e-mail gets an e-mail back, a letter gets a written response at least initially, unless the issue is urgent etc.

Look, I'm not saying that in every case a leaver should go to their soon-to-be ex-minister and have a conversation about moving on. I've already said above that there are church leaders with whom one wouldn't want to do this.

In fact, if one is leaving because of the unreasonableness or horribleness of the minister then the best thing, imo, is just to go, no letter, no goodbye. If I were in that position, I would feel no responsibility on my part to explain why I'm going to such a person; and if they're that interested they can come and ask me.

So if we're talking about leaving churches because of aggressive and unpastoral leadership then surely a letter would be useless in that case and a confrontation possibly even detrimental!

(A letter is only required - from courtesy - if one is resigning from a church office or post.)

However, if one is leaving a church which does not have nasty, bullying and unreasonable leadership, then part amicably like ordinary people having talked together. But even then, only if one wants to share what it is that has compelled them to move on.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think when it comes to deciding whether to stay and be a force for the better, or go and better yourself--well, you have to keep in mind that you are not the Messiah. You have a breaking point, and it will come earlier than His. Do what good you can, but if you sense that you are about to become a casualty, it's time to get out. A destroyed Christian benefits nobody.

That is a very good point. Thanks for this.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've known people to land on Vestry who have been in this country only few months!
in most cases I think it's not a good sign of organizational health.

quote:
I've known people to start a Bible study within weeks of arriving at a church.
One of these things is not like the other. This kind of thing is a much better IMO "way to get involved" for a new person.
Tee hee, some might say the opposite, that someone on vestry with off-base ideas can be voted down on every proposal and rendered harmless,

Well, indeed "some" *could* say it, but if the sayers think that's all that's likely to happen (including the implied no harm to the people doing the active "containment"), I'll loosely quote the Gator: "I want to live in that world. It must have pink fluffy unicorns and enchanted teapots". A longer observation period before giving out one of the top jobs with fiduciary responsibility is just due diligence [Smile]

. Starting out with smaller roles/responsibilities and seeing how they do is good practice.

quote:
but a Bible study leader with off-base ideas can do a lot of harm.

Oh, no doubt that a teacher with wonky ideas (or who is mostly interested in personal empire-building) can do damage to individuals/the church community/society at large.

Charlotte

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Until the sunday when we were told (explicitly) that Muslims and Buddhists, Roman Catholics and Anglicans were GOING TO HELL.
It was strongly implied that the only people who weren't on their way down were in that chapel that morning. The following weekend my RC Aunt and Cousin were coming to stay and I knew I couldn't inflict this bigotry on them.
(snip)
I don't think that we should feel too cosy or comfortable in church neccessarily - but if we feel that we couldn't take a friend or neighbour along, because they may be bullied or picked on, then it may be time to go.

This sounds similar to why I finally left the church I went to in high school. I was mostly "gone" anyway because I had gone off to uni in another town, but on my last visit, the youth pastor - a man who had been very kind to my squirrely teen self and whom I respected - reacted in horror to my tales of visiting the Newman Center. (I guess he hadn't heard the story about how I "accepted Christ" at a Catholic youth group meeting!) I was annoyed on behalf of my kind Christian friends who were part of that community, but my second reaction was "if he's that horrified about the Catholics, what must he think about my gay friends?". Besides dissing some wonderful people, I got the feeling that to remain "accepted" in that community, I would have had to "hide" things about myself that I didn't think were "bad" or needed to be kept secret. I'd heard a fair amount of it from the pulpit, but hearing it from this source made me think "I am really not safe here".

I wish I'd had the guts to challenge it, but I'm a wimp (and I was even wimpier as a young'un). I have, however, stayed true to my determination to never darken their doors again.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think when it comes to deciding whether to stay and be a force for the better, or go and better yourself--well, you have to keep in mind that you are not the Messiah. You have a breaking point, and it will come earlier than His. Do what good you can, but if you sense that you are about to become a casualty, it's time to get out. A destroyed Christian benefits nobody.

Heed the wise words of Lamb Chopped. Sometimes you just need to cut bait, shake the dust off your heels, and all that.

There are other communities. I am praying that you find one soon where you, Mrs Wood, and the children are welcomed and supported and are able to grow and flourish.

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Welcome back, Wood.

Old hag that I am, I'm still here. Yes, I do find it a bit ironic that you are now exploring Anglicanism. All things change.

I have left a church only once, and it was one of the most difficult and painful experiences of my life.

I still miss that parish, although it would be more accurate to say that I miss it before it decided to leave the ECUSA and the Anglican Communion. Once the congregation made that choice, though, I felt that I had no choice but to leave.

Your friend,

Greta

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Welcome back, Wood.

In my long years, I fortunately have had to leave a church only once. It remains one of the most difficult and painful experiences of my life.

When the parish voted to leave the ECUSA and thereby the Anglican Commuinion, I felt that I had no choice other than to find another church.

Even though, at the time, I agreed with the congregation on the issue that precipitated their departure, I felt that breaking away was absolutely the wrong course of action.

I still miss that parish although it would be more accurate to say that I miss it as it was before it left the ECUSA and thereby left me.

Greta

P.S. I do find it a bit ironic that you are exploring Anglicanism. All things change.

[ 29. January 2011, 21:57: Message edited by: CorgiGreta ]

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Somehow that first post seemed to have been lost in cyberspace, only to appear after I had posted a re-write.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Welcome back, Wood.

In my long years, I fortunately have had to leave a church only once. It remains one of the most difficult and painful experiences of my life.

It's good to see you too, Greta.

And yes, it's horrible. The whole week, it's been the only thing on my mind.

I wrote and sent the letter. it went like this (parts are redacted obviously).

Dear [pastor's first name],

It's been hard for me to write this letter, but after several years of painful deliberation, I feel that differences in theological outlook and church vision leave me no choice but to resign my membership at [church]. I think that it has been apparent that my commitment to the church and my involvement in the meetings has been waning for some time, and I fear that this is only a symptom of the distance that has grown between the church and me.

[church] has been my spiritual home for over sixteen years. [partial list of things the church has done for me; partial list of things I've done in the church; ten lines or so] You don't forget these things.

[church] has been my community of faith for a long time, and God has given an immeasurable amount to my life though this church in the good times and the hard times. This is one of the saddest decisions I have ever made, and I want to make it clear that no ill feeling whatsoever exists between me and the church leadership or the community at large at this time. My decisive issue is on a point of belief.

[bit about how Mrs Wood feels]

We sincerely hope that while we shall no longer worship on a Sunday among the community at [church], we shall continue to maintain our friendships with our brothers and sisters there.

We wish the church all the best.

Yours in regret and sadness.

[signed]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

To move matters on ... what about ministers who feel at odds with their denomination and seriously think about leaving. I'm not specifically thinking of the Ordinariate here, I have known Baptists going to the URC or even the Church of England, for instance. I even knew a Salvation Army guy who felt drawn towards Greek Orthodoxy, although he didn't make the jump.

Often the issues are to do with the minister becoming more "liberal" and the denomination being more "evangelical", for instance - although the gay issue may also come into focus.

There are genuine practical issues involved here, such as pension and housing provision. These may make an older Pastor stay put even though they would really like to move. Has anyone any thoughts/experience on this?

I do realise that this is about moving Church (with a big "C") rather than leaving a congregation.

[ 31. January 2011, 10:36: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To move matters on ... what about ministers who feel at odds with their denomination and seriously think about leaving. I'm not specifically thinking of the Ordinariate here, I have known Baptists going to the URC or even the Church of England, for instance. I even knew a Salvation Army guy who felt drawn towards Greek Orthodoxy, although he didn't make the jump.

Isn't this how most Anglican clergy feel all the time?

As none of us can quite agree on what the CofE actually is, and most of us want to change the CofE into something it is not, it must follow that nearly all of us must be wishing we were somewhere else!

[Smile]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I think there's always some tension, whichever tradition you're in. Because of my high church tendencies, I'm often asked why I'm not Anglican or Roman Catholic. I suspect if I went there, my Methodism would start showing! The grass always looks greener on the other side and I would be lying if I said I hadn't ever considered converting (and I think if I did, it would be Catholicism - but that's not to say that I don't have issues with Catholicism...) but there is a great deal I value where I am and I do feel that this is where God calls me to be. If anyone finds out where I can have the best of all of them, please drop me a line. [Razz]

[ 31. January 2011, 11:39: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

I hope the humour in my post was evident.

The CofE is a coalition of Evangelicals, Liberals and Catholics.

Naturally I want the CofE to be a Apostolic Sacramental Church as was the intention of the English Reformers.

However we keep letting in all these other folks who seem to think that the English Reformers had entirely different intentions!

Methodism has the same tensions I imagine. A fully pure Wesleyan Methodism with enhanced apostolic succession would also be an Apostolic Sacramental Church as was the intention of John Wesley. I would find such a church very attractive. As I do Scandinavian Lutheranism.

In the Cambridge Theological Federation relationships were warm between all the colleges (and warmer now than 5 years back I understand). But we all knew that it wasn't just in terms of geography that Westcott was closer to Wesley* than either were to Ridley+ or Westminster.

To be in such a diverse church is a great gift. But sometimes I think we skirt around fundamental theological and ecclesiological differences. I even suspect that many of the Dead Horse arguments are to keep our minds of the real divide in our communion#.

*Although separated by Jesus.

+I shall continue to dine out on my friend from Ridley who thanked 'us' for a very moving High Mass after shared worship. It was a straight forward Methodist communion service hosted by Wesley college, using the Methodist Worship Book.

#Which I believe to be the Sacraments. How a church can hold together with completely antagonistic competing views of the Eucharist, Holy Orders / Vocation and increasingly Baptism is a great mystery of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Edward Green said:
*Although separated by Jesus.

But, of course, Jesus is on our side*... [Big Grin]

*Of the road...

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Oh that Jesus. Not the other Jesus.

[ 31. January 2011, 16:43: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :

I don't think you'll find they talk about that Chorister..... [Two face]

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

Wood,

I think that your letter is perfect. It is both honest and charitable.

Greta

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I think there's always some tension, whichever tradition you're in. Because of my high church tendencies, I'm often asked why I'm not Anglican or Roman Catholic. I suspect if I went there, my Methodism would start showing!

I never felt more Methodist than when I started attending an Episcopal church.

Of course, in my case I found it a lot easier to be a congregationalist, plain talkin', covered-dish bringing Methodist in the Episcopal Church than to be a queer, Rosary praying, frequent-Eucharist-desiring Episcopalian in the Methodist Church.

Your mileage, as always, will vary.

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Of course, in my case I found it a lot easier to be a congregationalist, plain talkin', covered-dish bringing Methodist in the Episcopal Church than to be a queer, Rosary praying, frequent-Eucharist-desiring Episcopalian in the Methodist Church.

Your mileage, as always, will vary.

Yep. We imported the frequent-Eucharist and BCP-flavored liturgy into our Methodist church. We're now bells, no smells.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Wood, your letter seems very fair and reasonable indeed. At the very least anyone reading it should know the thought and deep consideration that's gone into it; which can only be commended and respected.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
We're now bells, no smells.

Unless someone has put something unspeakable down the ladies' toilet, and blocked it. But I don't think you were thinking of such mundane odours.

Posted by The Royal Spaniel (# 40) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Wood, your letter seems very fair and reasonable indeed. At the very least anyone reading it should know the thought and deep consideration that's gone into it; which can only be commended and respected.

Yes,I thought it was an excellent letter actually
Wood I'm very sorry that this has happened - I think it's very commendable for you to stand alongside your friends - to be honest that would press my buttons - I'll react a lot more strongly where close friends and family are concerned than over myself,where I'm normally a lot more laid back,some would say to a fault
I was a bit surprised,like Greta, that you were considering feeling the water in Anglicanism, but as she says - all things change
This is going to be a very difficult time for you and your family I know - so [Votive]

,but I hope you'll be able to find another congregation in which you can make your spiritual home
Anyway,prayers and best wishes.....

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

It is a very good letter, but if I am to be brutally honest - I think one part of it may not be true. You have spoken on this thread about your lack of trust in the leadership, and how you feel at times you have been mistreated. But in the letter you state there are no hard feelings.

I would suggest either leaving that piece of phrasing out, or if you feel up to it including something like: perhaps inevitably, owing to the years of growing and painful separation, I do have some wounded feelings and resentments about the process that has led to this - but I hope that in the future I will move beyond them and be able to cherish the grace I experienced whilst I was a member of [x] community.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

You know, I struggled with that bit. But in the end, I decided that it would be ungracious and unhelful to dredge stuff up, particularly relating to situation where the ministers never came to recognise/accept/admit/think they did anything wrong.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

Which is entirely fair enough, but in that case I would leave out the assurance of no hard feelings - instead maintaining a dignified reticence on that.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Well, bit late now. Sent it two days ago.

I don't know. I have to extend a hand of some sort. Because in the end it wasn't actually about past hurts, it was about a single point of doctrine.

Posted by Prudentius (# 11181) on :

I think the things that would drive me from membership in a particular congregation would be -

1) If that community had become a personality cult of the senior minister/pastor/preacher -- no matter how good he was. I believe that the over-riding personality has to be that of the Master.

2) If the community had become smug and self-righteous in tone

3) If the community was unwelcoming to strangers and new members who didn't fit into their racial/societal/socio-economic/sexuality mold

4) If the community were not committed to helping its own members in a meaningful way in times of hardship or crisis

5) If the community were not attempting to be the presence of Christ to the poor in the community beyond its doors

6) If I sensed that the liturgy and/or preaching lacked sincerity

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

So the letter went out three days ago. So far I have heard nothing, but tonight is when the deacons and elders meet, and they talk about church correspondence, so who knows?

quote:
Originally posted by Prudentius:
I think the things that would drive me from membership in a particular congregation would be -

1) If that community had become a personality cult of the senior minister/pastor/preacher -- no matter how good he was. I believe that the over-riding personality has to be that of the Master.

Yeah, although for a while we had that in our church (see below). We rode it through.

quote:
2) If the community had become smug and self-righteous in tone

This one is harder to judge, though. Part of the problem with identifying self-righteousness is that it can if you are not careful turn into a very self-righteous thing to do.

quote:
3) If the community was unwelcoming to strangers and new members who didn't fit into their racial/societal/socio-economic/sexuality mold

Well. This was my sticking point, with the proviso that was that it is not welcoming by policy; if it's a problem with the community and not the leadership, I'd stick around so I could at least be one of the welcoming ones. If the leadership make people unwelcome, well. There's less one can do.

quote:
4) If the community were not committed to helping its own members in a meaningful way in times of hardship or crisis

This is another hard one to call. Thing is, with churches you often find that people in any church get helped fabulously and others get overlooked, and there is no rhyme or reason why. I've been in both situations in the same church, back and forth. Again, one would have to explore why some people were overlooked and others were aided before making this the breaking point.

quote:
5) If the community were not attempting to be the presence of Christ to the poor in the community beyond its doors

Again, this is something that has to be explored. I mean, some churches, you go, "why don't you have a soup run/street pastors/whatever?" and they will go, "oooh that's a really good idea — want to have a go?" And that's fine, because if I am not prepared to do that stuff, why am I complaining about it not being done?

On the other hand, if the leadership go "No! Do not be ridiculous! That is socialism and we shall have no truck with such bleeding heart nonsense, because the Bible clearly says that God only helps those who help themselves and vote Conservative/Republican*" (*delete as appropriate) well, yes, see that cloud of dust where I was standing a second ago?

You know, it never fails to wrong-foot naïve old me that these people exist!

Even this week, some awful right-winger, apparently a minister, put a comment on a minister friend's blog to the lines that the primitive church in Jerusalem failed because their socialism was unrealistic and that they needed to be taught reality and that God was for business and capitalism and shit like that.

I wouldn't touch his church with a bargepole. Hell, I wouldn't touch it Dyfrig's bargepole. with Also, I got the impression he was a bigoted asshole (see point 3) anyway as well as the whole slave of Mammon thing, but that's by the by.

quote:
6) If I sensed that the liturgy and/or preaching lacked sincerity

This is an honest and interested question: how can one tell if that's the liturgy or one's own perception? I recall very clearly one occasion years ago trying to tell a girl I was working with at Spring Harvest (man, how far have I come?) that it was possible for liturgy to be sincere and spirit-filled. She was. not. having it. She's not alone.

And then there's the former minister of my church, gone these 11 years, who, while I worked for him in a stupid, abusive job (I should really thank him for souring me on evangelicalism and causing me to look outside) admitted to me that when he did the call to faith thing where you got everyone to bow their heads and keep their eyes shut and you tell anyone who wants to make a commitment to put their hands up without anyone seeing, that he would always go "thank you... yes, thank you..." a couple of times, all solemn like, even when no one had put their hand up, in order to push the people who were feeling nervous or doubtful into sticking up their hands. And then he would of course zero in on them after. Hanging's too good, etc.

The point being that there are still people who think that that man's ministry was the nearest the church got to an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And that he was a Great Man of God. Rather than the stone-cold crook he actually was.

Posted by Prudentius (# 11181) on :

Wood, you are absolutely right in your reactions to my rationale. Any and all of those would need investigation, including exploring the possibility of working to make things happen and sensitive perception.

As to "smugness." In my own experience, I find any condemnation of other faiths or too much self-congratulations repulsive. Preaching hate in any form or blanketly canonizing those present as "better than" makes me more than uncomfortable.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prudentius:
As to "smugness." In my own experience, I find any condemnation of other faiths or too much self-congratulations repulsive. Preaching hate in any form or blanketly canonizing those present as "better than" makes me more than uncomfortable.

Yes. No, I agree with you.

Funny story: I recall sitting in a Christian Union meeting in 1995 where the president prayed something like "thank you that we are not in the bar and all debauched and crap like the people in the Union bar downstairs."

This was particularly bad since the first place most of the CU went after CU meetings back then was the Union bar. Anyway, a chap called Dave who was sitting next to me, in the pause after the president spoke, spoke up: "Also, I thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there."

I never heard crap like that again from that president.

[ 03. February 2011, 11:20: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by moveable_type (# 9673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

This was particularly bad since the first place most of the CU went after CU meetings back then was the Union bar. Anyway, a chap called Dave who was sitting next to me, in the pause after the president spoke, spoke up: "Also, I thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there."

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Dave? Is that you?

Posted by Prudentius (# 11181) on :

As to sincerity, what I think one has to guard against is the attitude expressed so well by Cecily in "The Importance of Being Earnest" ---

“In matters of grave importance, style --- not sincerity --- is the important thing.”

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

I think it's virtually impossible to gauge until you know the people, and even then it can take a while. Anyone with a bit of performance skill can look like they mean it (incidentally, why I chose not to continue to take the pulpit despite everyone's insistence to the contrary back in the day, and before they realised I was dodgy).

[ 04. February 2011, 10:48: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

What would be my final straw to make me throw it all away?
Sleepness nights over niggling worries

Posted by bonabri (# 304) on :

Excellent letter nicely pitched.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've resisted posting on this thread so far because your experience has been rather too close to the bone in terms of my own journey. I left a church after 18 years once and it hurt like hell ... although it was clearly the right thing to do and, in retrospect, I wonder how or why I stuck it so long.

I'm not entirely comfy in my current church - but I think I would have happily stayed in my previous one (the one I went to after leaving the restorationist scene after 18 years).

I'm probably on a trajectory that'll take me outside of evangelicalism altogether, whilst remaining grateful for aspects of it.

Anyway, well done for writing the letter. I thought it was excellent.

And I'm sure things'll work out for you wherever you end up.

If there's anything I can say/share from my own previous experience that might help in any way, please let me know.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Thanks, Gamaliel.

FWIW, I have had no response so far. But it's only been four days. But if I hear nothing after Sunday... well, then I suppose I shall just have to shake the dust off my feet and look ahead.

On Sunday I sat in a church with doors in the pews and felt closer to God than I had in a very long time.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

If it's any comfort, Wood, being regarded as "dodgy" is OK and may indeed persist!

A good friend advises that membership of a liberal Anglo-Catholic church turned her back towards her evangelical roots. After a house move and a church change, she's now worshipping at a relatively conservative evo Anglican church, which she says brings out all her liberal tendencies! I pull her leg, advise her to be comfortable with her basic Dissenting world view!

Personally I think all churches are the richer for having a few members of the "naturally awkward squad" in their midst. It's good to have folks prepared to challenge assumptions and comfortable majorities. Anyway, that's how I rationalise things. [And as you get older, "gaga" becomes an increasingly credible defence.]

Very best wishes. This thread continues to be an education.

[ 04. February 2011, 23:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Funny story: I recall sitting in a Christian Union meeting in 1995 where the president prayed something like "thank you that we are not in the bar and all debauched and crap like the people in the Union bar downstairs."

This was particularly bad since the first place most of the CU went after CU meetings back then was the Union bar. Anyway, a chap called Dave who was sitting next to me, in the pause after the president spoke, spoke up: "Also, I thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there."

I never heard crap like that again from that president.

Tsk. They'd gone soft since my day, then. Most of them wouldn't have gone to the bar back then.
[Razz]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I can certainly relate to Barnabas's last post - as indeed to many of his posts. I get all evangelical around liberals and liberal around evangelicals.

I tend to get all sacramental around memorialists and memorialist around sacramentalists (although I've found that sacramentalism can be contagious ...)

I get all Catholic around Protestants and all Protestant around Catholics (Romans, Anglos and Orthodox) ...

I think the bottom line for me is that I'd want to be somewhere which isn't trying to mess with my head. It sounds like the pews with doors on may be a safe place ... at least for the time being.

At least you can open the doors if you feel the need for air or more space.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

"I am NOT contrary! ... It's just that it's not that simple ..."

[Biased]

The above comment brought to you out of fellow-feeling, rather than cheap-shotism.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

I was officially labelled as "awkward" by a (not my) vicar's wife on Wednesday evening. It kinda confirmed what I've always felt, even hoped. Sort of a badge of honour! I totally identify with the "liberal around evangelicals, evangelical around liberals" thing.

(I wouldn't care, it wasn't as if I was being deliberately provocative (on this occasion, at least). I only expressed my reluctance to call the Scriptures "the Word of the Lord", as I tend to reserve that title for Jesus alone.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I sympathise with Wood, Barnabas62's friend, Gamaliel and Jolly Jape. I'm currently two-timing with both a conservative anglo-catholic church and a liberal low-bordering-on-evangelical one. Both of them drive me crazy, but I couldn't do without the sacramentalism and attention to liturgy of the one, or the open-mindedness and simplicity of the other. The alternative would be to search out a straight-down-the-middle MOTR setup, which would drive me crazy with boredom.

As a priest, now retired, I realise that I have been spoilt, having been able to put my own stamp on things and mould a church into my own image. The frustration of not being able to do so when one has a vision of how things might be is hard to bear. It's easy to say it's self-indulgent, but it can't be spiritually healthy to continue in a church whose priorities and values are so alien.

It would be much easier in a 'take it or leave it' tradition such as the RCC. But many Catholics of my acquaintance seem to have the same sort of problems nevertheless.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Orthodox are even more 'take it or leave it' ... but they seem to have problems too.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

If one sends a letter and doesn't get a reply or response at all, is that even more hurtful, or a blessing?
I remember receiving a reply which set me back even further, because the content of it was so nasty. I'd have preferred no reply at all.
YMMV.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If one sends a letter and doesn't get a reply or response at all, is that even more hurtful, or a blessing?

I'm on the fence. Ask me in a week.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
This one is harder to judge, though. Part of the problem with identifying self-righteousness is that it can if you are not careful turn into a very self-righteous thing to do.

Very perceptive Wood. Sounds like leaving is the best thing to do if you are wary of this tendency.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Funny story: I recall sitting in a Christian Union meeting in 1995 where the president prayed something like "thank you that we are not in the bar and all debauched and crap like the people in the Union bar downstairs."

I think you are being a bit harsh here Wood. CU Presidents are usually only 19 years old. They take themselves way too seriously, but so do most 19 year olds.

When I was on the CU Committee (about a decade before your experience) our committee meetings used to go on 'til about midnight. What on earth was soooooo important to discuss for that long escapes me now. The Importance of being Earnest. The rest of the committee used to treat me with an air of bemusement - most meetings I would leave (after midnight) to go on to a night club to meet my mates. The going to lectures I wasn't so good at.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas 62:
Personally I think all churches are the richer for having a few members of the "naturally awkward squad" in their midst. It's good to have folks prepared to challenge assumptions and comfortable majorities. Anyway, that's how I rationalise things.

I agree with you B62 but it does come down to attitude. The NT is particularly down on divisive people. I think there is a difference between being 'different' and being 'awkward'.

(Not that I'm saying either Wood or JJ are awkward. [Big Grin]

Indeed the way Wood is handling this shows, ISTM, that he is the former and not the latter. )

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

That ( quoted) vicar's wife has a pretty divisive attitude if she is slapping a "difficult" label on someone about whom she know nothing, and very likely without proper qualification to do so.

m

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

Johnny & B62, I must disagree with surely the church should be full of awkward, difficult even nasty people but not exclusively. Better have them in the church than in the street and turning over the buses!

Posted by Roots (# 16193) on :

Hello Wood

Thank you so much for this thread...after years of following some threads from outside, I made the decision to join. This has hit my heart.

Its never easy to leave a church we have been part of for a long time,its like we are tearing ourselves apart. And yes, as a pastor,I also hurt when people leave, no matter the reason.

Once I was criticized for not replying timeously to a letter from a member leaving, yet to be honest, the letter floored me and I needed time to digest and ask God why. Try be patient with them and dont base your decision on wether you get a reply or not, but rather look to the future and move on? Ite pretty hard to reverse ourselves when we have made up our minds.

From previous personal history, moving from a church in ways not uplifting, do leave scars and the best thing we did was to not commit ourselves to another church immediately, but spent time simply enjoying fellowship, even if we did feel isolated at times. Eventually, and at the correct time, we found ourselves in a lovely congregation and fitted in well.

Adequate reason for leaving a church?
1. Being sent?
2. Excommunication?
3. Dying?
4. To keep the pastor humble? (has worked for me)
5. To discover that life doesnt end where we are now?

This thread has been the best ever and has given me more insight into leading a church well, thanks you all for this!!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Johnny and Fuzzipeg

Yes, I think my observation about the awkward squad needs a bit of qualification! It's possible to be both "awkward" and constructive. Once one gets into the undermining mindset, it's time to leave voluntarily!

I guess what I had in mind are the folks known as "Plants" in the Belbin team roles classification. Good leaders are not threatened by diverse, original and unorthodox opinions. Mediocre leaders often see those who generate such ideas as a threat to authority or the established order. Plants are a creative addition to any team, even though they can be pretty annoying if one is trying to build some kind of consensus! But they can often provide the stimulus for "breakthrough" plans via "out of the box" thoughts.

The problem in the church, very often, is a kind of anxiety about soundness.

[ 05. February 2011, 10:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Johnny & B62, I must disagree with surely the church should be full of awkward, difficult even nasty people but not exclusively. Better have them in the church than in the street and turning over the buses!

That reminds me of the joke about the Pastor and the Evangelist.

They had decided to enjoy a weekend retreat in a cabin up in the Rockies. True to type the Pastor was warming his toes in front of an open fire, reading a book, while the Evangelist was outside burning off some nervous energy.

About an hour later the Pastor glanced out of the window to see the Evangelist running frantically towards the cabin being chased by a wild grizzly.

Quick as a flash the Pastor jumped up and opened the door in order to rescue his friend. However, at the last minute, the Evangelist stepped to one side sending the bear crashing into the cabin. As the Pastor saw the door slam shut all he heard was, "Okay, you deal with that one and I'll go and get some more."

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are being a bit harsh here Wood. CU Presidents are usually only 19 years old. They take themselves way too seriously, but so do most 19 year olds.

I know a whole lot less now than I did when I was nineteen. TRUE STORY.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Re. the whole "awkward" thing: it's only useful to have awkward and restless people (you know, like those people who promote Christian Unrest, whatever that is) if there's some sort of place for them.

And that comes from two sides: if their unrest is constructive and useful, and comes from an expression of faith; and if the church at large (and leaders in particular) can, for whatever reason, conscious or accidental, allow these people to stay, and will converse with them rather than just shutting them up or doing the institutional equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and going "la, la, la, I cannot hear you," or finding ways to silence people or just repeating the party line over and over again without engaging with other opinions.

The difficult thing is, sometimes, with genuinely divisive people, the institutional equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and going "la, la, la, I cannot hear you" is sometimes really all you can do short of kicking them out.

The point is: a church that has unrestful people making a positive contribution is a terribly rare thing because both the unrestful folks and the rest of the community (particularly the leadership) have to make it work.

Regarding my own situation. People here have been terribly supportive, but I'm not for a second going to pretend that I am a model churchgoer. I might have been shut up over the years, I might have been ignored or shouted down, but I cannot honestly say that I have handled these situations well, or as a grown up. Leaving might well be the most grown-up thing I've ever done, churchwise.

[ 05. February 2011, 12:15: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

So much on this thread rings true and provides much to reflect on. I found myself nodding in agreement to this...

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can certainly relate to Barnabas's last post - as indeed to many of his posts. I get all evangelical around liberals and liberal around evangelicals.

I tend to get all sacramental around memorialists and memorialist around sacramentalists (although I've found that sacramentalism can be contagious ...)

I get all Catholic around Protestants and all Protestant around Catholics (Romans, Anglos and Orthodox) ...

Two examples particularly come to mind... first the 'evangelical' voice of old friends from one of the bigger evangelical 'denominations' who I often hear when I know I'm acting or speaking outside of (what I recall to be) their perception of godliness etc (I call it operating with grace usually!). But the other being a conversation I had with a colleague last week - of a more liberal catholic persuasion - who has me in that black and white evangelical box - and who was told by me that I'm not as evangelical as he has me labelled! I have to smile to myself that I hear the voice of condemnation from one lot and am perceived as that voice by another!

quote:
Roots:This thread has been the best ever and has given me more insight into leading a church well, thanks you all for this!!

And I agree with this too... food for thought and prayer to keep on the straight and narrow!
And I had to laugh at the Pastor and Evangelist joke... pretty near the mark at times that!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chelley:
I have to smile to myself that I hear the voice of condemnation from one lot and am perceived as that voice by another!

Happened to me for years. After a while, I stopped smiling. It broke my heart.

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Chelley:
I have to smile to myself that I hear the voice of condemnation from one lot and am perceived as that voice by another!
Happened to me for years. After a while, I stopped smiling. It broke my heart.

Yes there's a lot of reflection contained within that 'smile'. It seems to me that it's about trying to live out both 'loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength' and 'loving your neighbour as yourself' when some are most focused on the first to the detriment of the second and the other on the second to the detriment of the first. Seems that even Jesus was challenged when one lot thought he was overplaying one aspect over the other. Doing both with integrity is a lifetime's challenge.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The point is: a church that has unrestful people making a positive contribution is a terribly rare thing because both the unrestful folks and the rest of the community (particularly the leadership) have to make it work.

Yes, that is what i was trying to say.

Just because it is hard is not a reason to give up though.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chelley:
It seems to me that it's about trying to live out both 'loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength' and 'loving your neighbour as yourself' when some are most focused on the first to the detriment of the second and the other on the second to the detriment of the first.

You mean they're different?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

I got an e-mail from the pastor this afternoon, asking if we could arrange a time to talk. OK. Have to think about that.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
The point is: a church that has unrestful people making a positive contribution is a terribly rare thing because both the unrestful folks and the rest of the community (particularly the leadership) have to make it work.
Yes, that is what i was trying to say.

Good someone managed it, then.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

That sounds like a positive outcome for now. All good wishes for the next step.

re Christian Unions - even a good little chorister like me was labelled 'awkward' by the Christian Union - for asking too many questions, I think. We were divided up into groups and each group was given one of the awkward ones, to split us up. Trouble was, all this was written down on a piece of paper and the CU leader didn't keep it hidden. Well, I decided I might as well play up to my reputation until I gave up altogether. [Two face]

Did anyone actually manage to stay in the CU for the whole of the time they were at University or college? Or perhaps you were one of the good ones on the list without an 'A' for 'Awkward' next to your name?

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Chelley:
It seems to me that it's about trying to live out both 'loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength' and 'loving your neighbour as yourself' when some are most focused on the first to the detriment of the second and the other on the second to the detriment of the first.
You mean they're different?

It depends how you look at it - some people might be the most kindly people to others with no faith element involved as far as they're concerned (whether some say that inclination is present by means of God and being made in his image whether acknowledged or not is another question). But what I was getting at was that it seems to me that some Christians are heavily weighted towards the 'loving God' commandment, and that often outworks quite legalistically (right living/doing what God says etc) and gives a stronger weight to the 'holy living' aspect of faith - which can sometimes be very unloving/judgmental. So quite ironic in the sense that in their 'loving God', the neighbour who hasn't got it quite right can get a bit trampled on. And when they do go out 'loving their neighbour' it can almost seem a bit 'because I'm commanded' rather than because of the love we have to share.
On the other hand, some are so focused on the neighbour (perhaps more 'social action') that any sense of boundaries or being challenged in how we live goes out the window (often seen as being unloving to the other) or because 'loving God' is done by loving his people and not by 'being good and holy' in this view. Those are at the extremes but it does seem a tough balance where, as I said before, I've been on the 'judged and found wanting' end of both perspectives!
But there are quite a few occassions when Jesus got the brunt of opinion because he did both together perfectly and got to the heart of the matter. (eg woman caught in adultery; picking corn on the sabbath; turning over the tables in the temple). And isn't that the challenge!

Posted by Chelley (# 11322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I got an e-mail from the pastor this afternoon, asking if we could arrange a time to talk. OK. Have to think about that.

My thoughts with you, it must be a tough time - and prayers being said now I've finished rambling the previous reply!

[ 05. February 2011, 18:04: Message edited by: Chelley ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

If you do it, I hope you can make it somewhere on neutral territory where you can politely leave if you want to--like a coffee shop. So intimidating to be stuck in their office with three doors between me and the outside. [Frown]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Good someone managed it, then.

Hey, you could try that response when you talk to the Pastor.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If you do it, I hope you can make it somewhere on neutral territory where you can politely leave if you want to--like a coffee shop. So intimidating to be stuck in their office with three doors between me and the outside.

Hope it works out well. Sometimes these follow-up chats are them beating you up (verbally) for obviously not following God anymore (or you wouldn't be leaving their God-centered church).

I hope in your case it will be a chat of mutual respect, even if not of theological agreement.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I hope you get listened to on the situation of your friends. The church's attitude to homosexuality is something everyone should discuss openly, not just swept under the carpet until someone leaves as a point of conscience.

I remember talking with a friend who left in similar circumstances and the one thing she remembers is that 'he just didn't listen'. I guess it's the respect you show someone by listening to them, even if your views differ, that matters.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

The meeting should indeed be on neutral territory. You (and he) should also be accompanied by a witness -- not to talk, but just to be there to see what is said and how.

John

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

Wood, I have been following this thread with a lot of interest. I hope the meeting goes well and I admire you very much for making a difficult decision on behalf of your friends.

Posted by Boopy (# 4738) on :

It might be an idea, if you do agree to a meeting, to agree beforehand if possible the proposed content of the meeting to see if you both have the same expectations of what the meeting is intended to achieve. Does the pastor want to wish you well and say goodbye/try to persuade you to stay/tell you 10 reasons why homosexuality is wrong/rehearse your perceived faults in church life/really listen to why you are leaving? Possibly a combination of those but it is good before any difficult meeting to agree shared expectations and a common agenda for discussion if possible.

It is also worth agreeing who will attend. I once - many years ago - arranged to meet up with a minister for a difficult discussion about a specific issue in a church. He invited someone else to the meeting without telling me, but didn't do me the courtesy of inviting me to bring someone along myself. That created a very uneven and awkward discussion where the 'balance of power' felt very uncomfortable. Check that a 'meeting with the pastor' doesn't in practice mean, say, a meeting with the pastor and three church elders who all support his views.

Good luck!

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

That's been pulled on me before, although they did do it at our house and I am not easily intimidated. This time, though, it's going to be mano a mano, as they say in lame hipster movies.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

It's having a knock-on effect. My eldest son, for example, wanted to go to the other church yesterday.

I ended up having to explain it to him, as best I can. I was completely honest with him, and he was sad, but OK about it.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boopy:
It is also worth agreeing who will attend. I once - many years ago - arranged to meet up with a minister for a difficult discussion about a specific issue in a church. He invited someone else to the meeting without telling me, but didn't do me the courtesy of inviting me to bring someone along myself. That created a very uneven and awkward discussion where the 'balance of power' felt very uncomfortable. Check that a 'meeting with the pastor' doesn't in practice mean, say, a meeting with the pastor and three church elders who all support his views.

That kind of thing is good advice but may I point out that it is also good practice for the protection of the Pastor?

Considering Wood's situation I can see why the advice has all been from this perspective, but it is worth bearing in mind that abuse can go the other direction too. (Again, I'm not saying Wood is doing this here.)

I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of doing this but I have been in conversations where the discussion has been entirely about protecting the church member from the church leadership as if it is impossible for the church member to abuse the situation.

Leaving a church is a painful process for everyone. Pastors will always take it personally because it will always feel to them a criticism of their ministry. Usually church leaders are pooping their pants about this type of meeting just as much as the church member.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not accusing anyone on this thread of doing this but I have been in conversations where the discussion has been entirely about protecting the church member from the church leadership as if it is impossible for the church member to abuse the situation.

Leaving a church is a painful process for everyone. Pastors will always take it personally because it will always feel to them a criticism of their ministry. Usually church leaders are pooping their pants about this type of meeting just as much as the church member.

This is (hang on, need to take a deep breath here, check the poster's name, read the post again just to check I read it correctly) right.

Having said that, we've had several posts on the thread from the minister's perspective — it's not a side of the situation that's been unrepresented.

But yes, it's important that although the likelihood is slightly higher that the person in authority might abuse the situation, this does not mean that members of the a congregation cannot abuse their ministers, particularly in congregational churches. And it really happens. I am reminded, for example, of a thread in Hell a few weeks ago posted by Zappa about precisely this sort of thing.

I'm meeting the pastor in a public place anyway. He's not the sort of man to abuse a position — at least not deliberately — and I'm not wanting to make a big deal of it. It's hard enough already.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It's hard enough already.

Sure.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A friend emailed me last night that he has switched churches. He had fussed at me "5 years in this church and no one knows my name." Sang in choir, served on committees, so it's not like he was one of the people who prefer to stay apart. But no one will chat with him at coffee, if he makes a suggestion at a committee the discussion continues as if he had said nothing, when his wife died not one person in his church sent flowers, or a card, or a phone call, or an email. Not one.

Last night he told me Sunday he went to a neighboring town's same denomination church and people greeted him, chatted with him, so different!

Funny how churches get a group personality, some are friendly to newcomers, some freeze them out.

If you are used to church being to some extent a social activity - what else does it mean to gather together around the person of God instead of staying home to watch it on TV, although different denominations assume more or less social interaction - then how long do you keep trying before concluding "these people don't want me," and go elsewhere?

I mentioned his situation to a clergy friend today who said "stay and change it." I asked "how long?" It's not like he's giving up in a week or two, or even a year or two. How long should you go home from church each week feeling lonelier than before you went? I think 5 years is too long. For someone over 70, there aren't a lot of active years left to stick around and see if things change and you can start making friends. Heck, in any age group 5 years of social rejection is too long to stick around. Why should a child or a teen or a young parent put up with years of social rejection instead of moving to a church that delights to have his or her presence?

So here's a reason that has nothing to do with theology, but instead a kind of abuse (neglect counts as abuse, taking your money and your time but not acknowledging your personhood). Years of going to pot lucks and no one at whatever table you sit at will talk with you, they are all busy enjoying their own friends and don't want more.

I don't know long one should "stay to try to change it," but I know people all over town who moved here, tried that church for anywhere from 5 months to 5 years, left and are much happier wherever they landed. (Well, I know one who says he will never enter a church again, but if that church had such a negative effect on him, he was right not to stay.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Belle Ringer, I can't help thinking that the best you can do is to stop worrying about all your friends and why church doesn't suit them, and trust God to work out their problems for them. Surely you have enough of your own to keep yourself and God busy for a while?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
So here's a reason that has nothing to do with theology, but instead a kind of abuse (neglect counts as abuse, taking your money and your time but not acknowledging your personhood). Years of going to pot lucks and no one at whatever table you sit at will talk with you, they are all busy enjoying their own friends and don't want more.

I don't know long one should "stay to try to change it," but I know people all over town who moved here, tried that church for anywhere from 5 months to 5 years, left and are much happier wherever they landed.

It seems to me that this question can be approached from two different points of view. If I'm considering a "stay or leave" decision, I can easily find myself considering it from the point of view of what I need from the church versus my obligation to stay and contribute, which can lead to some rather agonizing decision-making.

Or I can approach it from the point of view of choosing between what I think I will be able to do to contribute and/or serve God and neighbor if I stay versus what I might be able to do to contribute and/or serve God and neighbor if I leave for somewhere else. Since how much I can do to contribute or serve will very much depend on how much I am accepted in any given group (and maybe even how comfortable I feel being a member of that group), approaching my decision from this point of view won't necessarily lead me to a different conclusion and it won't necessarily make my decision easier. But it might help me remove the guilt aspect that can contribute so much to the agony of making it, as well as allowing for a more clear-headed decision as a result.

If things get to the point where I'm pretty sure I can make a more valuable contribution to a different group because I'm just not being accepted in my current group, then why should I not make the change, even if it also happens to make me happier? Personally, I think God often arranges for the two to go together.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

I've been thinking about it a lot recently. My sit down with the pastor is tomorrow.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

So here's a reason that has nothing to do with theology, but instead a kind of abuse (neglect counts as abuse, taking your money and your time but not acknowledging your personhood). Years of going to pot lucks and no one at whatever table you sit at will talk with you, they are all busy enjoying their own friends and don't want more.

I was talking with a friend and she described the exact same situation: her entire family were part of this church for years, and each of them was important to the running of it... and no one spoke to them except to ask them stuff. So eventually they moved on.

I was visiting friends yesterday, and I went to their church, which was, frankly, completely outside my comfort zone, a charismatic place with a rock band that didn't just look like a leisure centre, it was the leisure centre (as in, the church had turned their building into a leisure centre for a community that didn't hitherto have one, with like gym, soft play and coffee shop and everything).

Anyway, there was this bloke who was not the pastor who did most of the talking, and he was smug, and made inappropriate jokes (like, really inappropriate, like sexist, mildly risqué but still too risqué for the pulpit gags) and used the language of self-help and therapy to describe Christian faith. The pastor was largely sidelined: even when he got to stand up on stage, the other man "interviewed" him, not allowing the pastor to get a word in edgeways. The communion was an afterthought. Many of the more ecclesiologically inclined posters here would have been utterly appalled by the lack of solemnity and importance given it. Hell, I was, particularly when I later was told that it was "more formal than usual" (I suppressed my urge to say something that rhymed with "bowlie duck").

Suffice to say, I could hear the little alarm bells in my head going didngdingdingdingding throughout the service. I did not know how I was going to talk to my friends about their church when it came to going to their place for lunch.

The thing was, it turned out that my friends had been going there for well over a year and this chap was new, like only present for a few months, and it was not always like this.

He is, it transpires, a "church consultant", a term that chills my blood just thinking about it. The church apparently has paid to get this man in to "revitalise their outreach". And I bet he's not on minimum wage.

And my friends do not like him at all — information they volunteered before I could say anything. Hell, they know me. They knew I was cringing.

And they're worried about the church, and about the grip this man has been given over it. And I told them that it wasn't time to leave. I told them that even the Apostle Paul used inappropriate language, worse than this fella, and that he's only temporary, and asked them if he had crossed the line over to actual abuse of the congregation outside of dodgy worship meetings.

I told them what they thought already. That it wasn't right to leave yet, but that it soon might be.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I told them what they thought already. That it wasn't right to leave yet, but that it soon might be.

Hard to know. Just plain really hard to know if staying can make a real difference or if the specific church is headed in a direction different than and incompatible with the direction God is leading you. Or sometimes one can be useful and grow by staying but more useful and more growing by moving.

And no matter what the decision we often can't know for sure if it was the right one.

But the threat of others throwing around nasty labels like "church hopper" for moving or "stuck in a rut" for not moving, is irrelevant. As with any decision, we've got to try to follow God however we understand guidance, and trust God to somehow use our sincere but often flawed decisions for good.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Wood, a good test for your friends would be for them to use inappropriate language to this jerk to see how he reacts ...

Just a suggestion.

I'm past patience with wankers like that.

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :

quote:
the church had turned their building into a leisure centre for a community that didn't hitherto have one, with like gym, soft play and coffee shop and everything

Seems like they are really trying to serve the community already. Why do they need to hire a consultant to revitalise their outreach? Let alone the one they got?
I always wonder how these "wrong uns" into get these positions in the first place.
[Votive]

for everyone struggling with whether they are in the right place or not

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
He is, it transpires, a "church consultant", a term that chills my blood just thinking about it. The church apparently has paid to get this man in to "revitalise their outreach". And I bet he's not on minimum wage.

And my friends do not like him at all — information they volunteered before I could say anything. Hell, they know me. They knew I was cringing.

And they're worried about the church, and about the grip this man has been given over it.

That guy wasn't 'formerly from Devon' was he? He sounds so much like someone I recognise and who caused so much trouble. Such people often get passed from church to church as they exhaust the patience of each congregation. The guy I'm thinking of believed he had a special ministry to Christian Ministers. And some Christian Ministers were very gullible and believed him. At least at first....

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :

Thanks for this thread, which I have followed with interest. I hope your meeting involves grace, wisdom and clear communication on both sides and that you can have a good ending with integrity or an obvious break through (however unlikely that may seem).

God be with you,

OOT [Votive]

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

I went to their church, which was, frankly, completely outside my comfort zone, a charismatic place with a rock band that didn't just look like a leisure centre, it was the leisure centre...

Anyway, there was this bloke who was not the pastor who did most of the talking, and he was smug, and made inappropriate jokes (like, really inappropriate, like sexist, mildly risqué but still too risqué for the pulpit gags) and used the language of self-help and therapy... The communion was an afterthought...

Greta faints, partially recovers, and crawls back to the haven of Ecclesiantics.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:
the church had turned their building into a leisure centre for a community that didn't hitherto have one, with like gym, soft play and coffee shop and everything
Seems like they are really trying to serve the community already. Why do they need to hire a consultant to revitalise their outreach?

It depends on whether they actually get community groups in to use the facilities they have.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Ophelia's Opera Therapist: Thank you. It goes down in my lunch break.

Chorister: The man's accent was certainly West of England, even though we were in a smallish town not far from Bridgend. I honestly have no idea. PM me and we shall see if we can find out anything more.

quote:
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

I went to their church, which was, frankly, completely outside my comfort zone, a charismatic place with a rock band that didn't just look like a leisure centre, it was the leisure centre...

Anyway, there was this bloke who was not the pastor who did most of the talking, and he was smug, and made inappropriate jokes (like, really inappropriate, like sexist, mildly risqué but still too risqué for the pulpit gags) and used the language of self-help and therapy... The communion was an afterthought...

Greta faints, partially recovers, and crawls back to the haven of Ecclesiantics.

I know! It's mostly as awful as it sounds. Trust me, I was not comfortable there at all.

I'm OK with the church building thing (it wasn't an old building -- it was basically a concrete box, so it's not like they were vandalising anything) but the other stuff, especially the communion. I mean there's a lot I have had to come to terms with in a Baptist communion service, but you cannot say that they don't approach it with solemnity and respect.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

I met him. It went about as well as it could possibly have done.

He was gracious, and honourable, and agreed with my stand that resigning membership, given I couldn't actually live up to the membership covenant, was the only thing I could do with integrity. He said that the door was open to me to come back. He was sad. He thought I was wrong but was smart enough to know that an argument would get him nowhere.

He's not the excommunicating sort. He's a better man than that.

But the bad thing, the thing I was dreading... the disappointment. I knew he was going to say he was disappointed, and when he did, for the first time, and the other few times he said it, it was hard to take.

That's all.

Posted by Ophelia's Opera Therapist (# 4081) on :

Glad it went as well as it did - I was thinking of you.

The point about disappointment is understandable, but there is a very big difference between someone being disappointed that you are leaving, and being disappointed in you.

The first sounds honest, fair and realistic, based on all you have contributed.

The second would be judgemental - that you haven't lived up to his expectations. From the point about agreeing with your decision based on the circumstances, it sounds like the former to me.

Just in case that helps at all,

OOT [Smile]

Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I met him. It went about as well as it could possibly have done.

He was gracious, and honourable, and agreed with my stand that resigning membership, given I couldn't actually live up to the membership covenant, was the only thing I could do with integrity. He said that the door was open to me to come back. He was sad. He thought I was wrong but was smart enough to know that an argument would get him nowhere.

He's not the excommunicating sort. He's a better man than that.

But the bad thing, the thing I was dreading... the disappointment. I knew he was going to say he was disappointed, and when he did, for the first time, and the other few times he said it, it was hard to take.

That's all.

It sounds like you did all you could - and plenty of people wouldn't have done so much. [Votive]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

I agree that you (and he, probably) did all you could.

I have to wonder if part of his disappointment was due to learning that someone from his congregation could possibly disagree with him on the issue in question. Someone who's been there for years, done the work you've done, heard the teaching of the plain truth...and yet disagrees with him. I'd be willing to bet that's never been part of his universe, until now. WHich is why I think he's done all he can.

John

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Keep in mind that "disappointment" terminology is often recommended managementspeak for underperforming/contrarian employees...I know when I was in supervisory positions the literature always suggested that as a way to gently but firmly express one's displeasure: "I have to say, Bob, that I've been disappointed by your failure to meet the last two project deadlines." I wouldn't take it to heart.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Keep in mind that "disappointment" terminology is often recommended managementspeak for underperforming/contrarian employees...I know when I was in supervisory positions the literature always suggested that as a way to gently but firmly express one's displeasure: "I have to say, Bob, that I've been disappointed by your failure to meet the last two project deadlines." I wouldn't take it to heart.

I find that British evangelical Christians, among whom I have travelled for 16 years, use it in the same way, a nice way to express displeasure with someone.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Ah well, at least he didn't tell you that you were ungracious and unsubmissive as well. Graciousness and submissiveness seem to be highly prized qualities amongst those who want people to follow them without questioning anything.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Well done Wood, and may the future be brighter for you. I'm not surprised that you're struggling to accept your (former) leader being disappointed in you when your own conscience is clear and your mind settled on the path you have chosen. [Votive]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But the bad thing, the thing I was dreading... the disappointment. I knew he was going to say he was disappointed, and when he did, for the first time, and the other few times he said it, it was hard to take.

Once is enough FF sake. Sounds to me like he was, um, gracious-ness challenged. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Ah, yes, the old more in sorrow than in anger line.

That's just emotional blackmail dressed up in sheep's clothing.

You could have offered to pray for him...

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

I think he was genuinely sad.

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

No doubt he was. The state of mind and the behaviour are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps the departure of a faithful soul such as yourself might lead him to rethink matters.

m

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

It's difficult to judge at such a distance and without context.

For instance, there's a world of difference between "I'm disappointed in you" and "I'm of course really disappointed that we'll be parting company but I understand the reasons".

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's difficult to judge at such a distance and without context.

For instance, there's a world of difference between "I'm disappointed in you" and "I'm of course really disappointed that we'll be parting company but I understand the reasons".

Yeah, and honestly, the feeling communicated, although somewhere between the two, was somewhat closer to the latter than the former.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

He's on a journey, too. He's just taking longer than you. Perhaps one day he will thank you for being one of his teachers on the road. (Well, you never know. Stranger things have happened.)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
He's just taking longer than you.

How do we know this? I mean, I agree with Wood's take on this specific issue, but I don't think we can necessarily generalize to evaluate an individual's position on whatever journey from that.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

It's true.

We are of course all on journeys... but we really don't have any way of knowing where folks are going. Or how quickly.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

To what extent does this show that the leader involved is as sincere in his beliefs as Wood?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
To what extent does this show that the leader involved is as sincere in his beliefs as Wood?

In the end, I know the guy, much better than his second-in-command. He's gone over 15 years in the same church from being the church's youth worker, to being assistant pastor, to being the senior pastor. Mrs Wood is good friends with his wife.

I think that he's sincere.

He asked me if this was about the authority of Scripture; I said no, and explained that I believed very strongly that two Christians who view Scripture as central to the revelation etc. God's Word word blah blah blah basis of Christian belief blah blah blah inevitably pick and choose what they believe, and that there are alternative interpretations of the passages in question which one can believe without abandoning the Bible and so on, and he realised that I had actually read some stuff and thought about it and that an argument was going to be counterproductive.

So we changed the subject and talked about it a bit more and I made the point that if I'm right, I've got to go, and if I'm wrong — and I said I could be, although I'm fairly sure I'm not — I still have to go, because I can't honestly accede to the membership covenant anymore, because to be part of it you have to accept the Evengelical Alliance Basis of Faith, which I mostly don't, these days.

And I said that the only path I could take with integrity was to resign my membership. And he looked like he was about to cry and said the door was always going to be open. And I said, OK.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

God it all sounds really difficult.

I think we can't really know if he's sincere in his beliefs. Perhaps he is as sincere as any of us, perhaps he isn't. Wood is in a better position to judge than us, but none of us really know.

The "disappointment" phrases might reflect that his inner not-so-good-evangelical was screaming "Fucking hell, this isn't supposed to happen" but that couldn't come out. So what came out was "disappointment".

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Quite.

And on the flip side, you only have my word as posted here as to my own sincerity.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

But even if this was all 'hypothetical' and Wood isn't really leaving a church at all, it's still good for us to discuss. It's not exactly an unfamiliar scenario. There would be another 'Wood' out there, going through exactly the same thing. And one day it might be us, if it hasn't been already.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The "disappointment" phrases might reflect that his inner not-so-good-evangelical was screaming "Fucking hell, this isn't supposed to happen" but that couldn't come out. So what came out was "disappointment".

I'm trying to think what he should have said. I suppose ideally something like "I trust your integrity in wanting to follow God, and I trust God to lead you wherever you should go; thank you for your years of service here, go in peace."

But I guess that's unrealistic. Pastor has lost a hard worker, and has failed to convince with what he thinks is truth, and probably believes one of "his sheep" is now fallen into error. He is suffering loss of a worker and perhaps loss of confidence is his own capability as a leader. Loss is a hard emotional position from which to bless the one causing or demonstrating the loss.

I give him a lot of credit for not scolding or condemning, as too often happens in this kind of situation.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But I guess that's unrealistic. Pastor has lost a hard worker, and has failed to convince with what he thinks is truth, and probably believes one of "his sheep" is now fallen into error. He is suffering loss of a worker and perhaps loss of confidence is his own capability as a leader. Loss is a hard emotional position from which to bless the one causing or demonstrating the loss.

I give him a lot of credit for not scolding or condemning, as too often happens in this kind of situation.

See, I think this gets across how I'm feeling. Like I said, it was a pretty hard meeting, but nothing was said in anger.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

One thing I forgot to add but in hindsight seems pretty significant is that the pastor asked - honestly - what he should say to the people who were asking where we've gone.

I thought that a very good gesture.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Wood, your PM inbox is full.

I'm glad your meeting with your minister went as well as could be hoped.

At the beginning of your thread you said:

quote:
I don't post here much these days, because generally I don't have anything to say that other people can't say better.

Well, I for one hope you stick around for a bit longer. I actually think that you say things better than a lot of other people!

I tend to read a lot more than I post, so I get it - but I've valued your contributions over the last few weeks, and hope that there'll be a few more.

Thanks for this thread.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

It's not full anymore. Try again.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
To what extent does this show that the leader involved is as sincere in his beliefs as Wood?
He's gone over 15 years in the same church from being the church's youth worker, to being assistant pastor, to being the senior pastor. Mrs Wood is good friends with his wife.

Tangent I know - but it would be interesting for other people's views of this kind of succession. I am not necessarily in favour of it myself.

Wood I really feel for you. I've been in the same place over the same issue but in my case it was a matter of integrity that I couldn't remain with teaching and a lifestyle that I considered didn't square with what the bible said. I felt that the leader's own gay lifestyle was the issue, esp as it was an "open secret" in a denomination that (then in the 1980's) was supposedly very anti: seems that a certain higher up turned a blind eye.

Couldn't agree with the position nor the theology and couldn't stick the hypocrisy - So I walked. Would I do different today? Probably not but that doesn't stop me respecting you for the courage of your convictions.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
To what extent does this show that the leader involved is as sincere in his beliefs as Wood?
He's gone over 15 years in the same church from being the church's youth worker, to being assistant pastor, to being the senior pastor. Mrs Wood is good friends with his wife.
Tangent I know - but it would be interesting for other people's views of this kind of succession. I am not necessarily in favour of it myself.

I think it might be worth its own thread.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
One thing I forgot to add but in hindsight seems pretty significant is that the pastor asked - honestly - what he should say to the people who were asking where we've gone.

What did you tell him?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
One thing I forgot to add but in hindsight seems pretty significant is that the pastor asked - honestly - what he should say to the people who were asking where we've gone.
What did you tell him?

I said to say:

• Yes, I'd left;
• No, it wasn't for a personal problem, it was a matter of belief and conscience;
• If they wanted to know more, they could come talk to me.

He was fine with that.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That sounds very sensible. I'd have been completely flustered by that question - but presumably you'd thought about if before.

Is it worth telling people specifically that you're still a Christian or was that implicit anyway?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That sounds very sensible. I'd have been completely flustered by that question - but presumably you'd thought about if before.

Is it worth telling people specifically that you're still a Christian or was that implicit anyway?

Well, that's a toughie, innit. I think I'm still a Christian. I don't know what he thinks about that.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Hmmmm. I see the wisdom in avoiding that argument - it could well have soured the meeting.

Perhaps saying that you still believe in God and turn to Christ and the cross for the forgiveness of sins would be harder to argue with.

[ 17. February 2011, 15:13: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

My problem there is that I never used that sort of language even in those two years when I was a good little evangelical, and it ain't fooling no one.

But I do see your point. I'm sure I could have said something. But I felt it better not to raise it at all.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

You could have been right. The statement may have provoked more probing.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

A coda.

So a close friend, who also left the church over the same thing, but who did not write a letter and was not a member and therefore did not have to resign, said to me yesterday that she had only heard from two people who had missed her.

But she was not counting the group of friends with whom she had discussed it (and that reminds me, I really have to sort things out with [name of friend here], who still hasn't spoken to me and who is still as far as I know hurt that I up and left with my family without consulting her on the subject beforehand).

And I was reminded of what the Pastor asked me, about what he should say to all the people asking where I had gone. Because they were asking enough for him to feel he should have a response ready for when people asked. And one person has actually come round and asked how I am and asked why.

But that doesn't mean that I am actually not being missed. I think of the number of times that people have left the church and how I wondered where they went, and asked people "what happened to Fred?" or whatever and then did nothing about going to find them or track them down to see how they were, partly oput of some idea that they might want to be left alone, partly because I didn't know how to approach them, partly because I was just plain lazy, I suppose.

My friend, I said, was wrong to conceive a hurt. That two people outside of the immmediate group of friends that (I said) she was taking for granted had come to find her was actually a credit to the church, because all too often, no one says anything. And people do miss her, and me. But they're not saying. And that's OK.

Honestly, I'm glad they're not. It's enough to know and it makes it easier. But I understand why someone might want to be asked.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

There’s also the reverse of that – when you leave, how many people do you reach out too in the hope of not losing touch? (Or to paraphrase Steve Chalke, when you complain that no one’s done such and such, ask yourself how many times you’ve done that this week).

[I mention this only because I know this was something I was really crap at]

Tubbs

[ 28. February 2011, 13:38: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
There’s also the reverse of that – when you leave, how many people do you reach out to in the hope of not losing touch? (Or to paraphrase Steve Chalke, when you complain that no one’s done such and such, ask yourself how many times you’ve done that this week).

Well, quite.

I'm kind of in a wobbly state with a number of friends. It's even harder than I thought it would be.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
There’s also the reverse of that – when you leave, how many people do you reach out to in the hope of not losing touch? (Or to paraphrase Steve Chalke, when you complain that no one’s done such and such, ask yourself how many times you’ve done that this week).
Well, quite.

I'm kind of in a wobbly state with a number of friends. It's even harder than I thought it would be.

Sorry, I realised after posting that sounded way more harsh than it was meant to. These things are never easy - particularly when there's no good outcome. (Leaving is hard, but staying when your conscience says you shouldn't would be worse imo).

We found that once you took the church in common thing away, we had less friends than we thought. [Frown]

There are still people I'm sad we left behind. OTH, the friends we kept have seen us through all sorts of sh*t.

Tubbs

[ 28. February 2011, 13:47: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

From experience, one day you will be able to look back, from a position of belonging to new groups with new friends, and be glad that you also know all those other people because of a church you used to go to once. But it takes a long time to get to that stage. Hang in there.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
At the beginning of your thread you said:

quote:
I don't post here much these days, because generally I don't have anything to say that other people can't say better.
Well, I for one hope you stick around for a bit longer. I actually think that you say things better than a lot of other people!

Wood, your Ship voice is unique. I've always found your posts enjoyable and often thought-provoking. It's up to you how often you post, of course, but you are one of those people whose avatar makes me more likely to read a post.

(And now you owe me a Marshmallow Sundae for the ego-massage... [Razz]

)

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
From experience, one day you will be able to look back, from a position of belonging to new groups with new friends, and be glad that you also know all those other people because of a church you used to go to once. But it takes a long time to get to that stage. Hang in there.

Very much so. IME, as you're the one who has left, you'll be the one who'll need to reach out to the people you want to keep in touch with in the early days. [Which was what I was trying to get at yesterday. It's really easy to get into a mindset of "no one's phoned ..." and forget that you haven't phoned either. I am particularly terrible at calling people].

It's worth - once you've had the initial conversation about Why We Left - avoiding the issue in future unless they bring it up. Endless rehashes get really dull - for you as well as them.

Tubbs

[ 01. March 2011, 11:13: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's really easy to get into a mindset of "no one's phoned ..." and forget that you haven't phoned either. I am particularly terrible at calling people].

Yeah. Me too. I leave it too long and never know what to say.

quote:
It's worth - once you've had the initial conversation about Why We Left - avoiding the issue in future unless they bring it up. Endless rehashes get really dull - for you as well as them.

I'm finding that already. I made a point of not rehashing quite early on.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0