|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Watching another church split
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
One local church of about 150-200 splits every few years, 20% or so leave together and form a new church. (Growing area, lots of room for new churches.) I don't know the causes.
A tiny town I visited had a tiny Episcopal church of 9 people, started by a retired clergy person meeting in the Catholic building. After two years, they split, 4 meeting in a house. The homosexuality issue split them, although there are no (known) homosexuals in that local church.
I'm currently watching a slower split, in a church of maybe 125-150 under 10% of the church left together and formed a house church, over the next two months it grew to 20%+ of the church as more left the church and moved to the house church. The pastor had been arrested -- released and probably won't go to trial but not declared innocent -- for supposedly drunk driving but the police didn't collect any evidence that would prove or disprove it, naturally (alas) a lot of people assume he's guilty because they saw it in the newspaper, so some of the church agitated to get rid of him. (OFF TOPIC/Is getting rid of someone for having been charged but not convicted of a crime the best Christian response?/off topic)
A friend (who moved to the house church after a month, partly because most of her friends had left, partly because she dislikes the newly blatant politics) and I have been debating -- does a church split *because* of a single incident or single point of theology disagreement? Or is that one item just a "last straw," some other last straw was gonna happen if that one didn't, what's really going on is not just disagreement "how do we best deal with this particular issue" but an underlying lack of cohesion in many ways that was always there and would eventually have come out anyway?
Did the pastor's arrest cause the split, or was that church gonna split anyway, not today but in a year or three?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Doesn't sound as if most of those involved had ever worked out what a church might be for.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
It reminds me of all those ever splitting left wing / Marxist / Trotskyite groups in the 70s and 80s. Each one doctrinally more pure pure than the one they left behind.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Have you considered that you might be the problem? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Seriously, churches don't split on one issue. However it is often the approach to a specific issue that epitomises the problems. So homosexuality may be the "headline" issue, but it may be that the intolerance of the leadership, the refusal to deal properly with the debates an arguments, that is really the problem.
A church where everyone assumes the leader is guilty because it is in the paper is in deep trouble. They clearly don't trust the leader, and it sounds like the leader has not been honest with the congregation. This - the lack of trust - is what is causing the split. Exactly what topic people hang their hat on is irrelevant.
I left my church because I felt it was going too far to the conservative side. But behind this was also that the vicar had not responded to two important emails, not engaged with me properly on important topics.
There is always far more behind these problems than the ones indicated on the tin.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
It is a pattern that I have seen a lot in new independent churches. They split/fall out/change name a lot. They seem to last about 2 years and then there is the split.
There have been disagrements and without the wider structure that holds them together or mediates or has the 'rules.' Then a split is easier than having to work it out.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Quite apart from what S's Cat wrote above, I think new churches (and organisations) are particularly suspect to fragmentation as they are often centred around personalities, they are still trying to work out structures, and they are full of highly zealous and committed people who get sniffy at any hint of "compromise".
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
You know, I grew up as a pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic. Then I married and my dear beloved went to congregational-type evangelical American churches that were pretty much in the baptist/pentecostal type mode.
My youngest memory of a church "split" was hearing of those "leaving" the Roman Catholic Church because (drum roll)... the Latin Mass is the ONLY Mass! Then it was the late 60's/early '70's, and all the stuff about abortion, birth control, etc.
But in the congregational model, I've seen FAR too many of these. Now mind you, I've never been on a board, or even been a voting member of a congregation. But I've been close enough acquaintances of a few good pastors, and seeing how they have to uproot their lives and families and children when they are removed for some odd reason (and sometimes, it's really odd!), well, it's sad. The politics, the back-stabbing, the power-grabbing, it's enough to bring me to tears even as I type this. As my one friend told me, a dear man and as good a pastor as one could ask for, "The average term of a pastor in this denomination is 3 years. Then they want a change, either just to freshen things up, or because income isn't what it should be, or because you've stepped on someone's toes... They don't care what it does to you financially, or that your kids have to change school mid-term, or whatever else you may be going through at the time- you're gone..." He said this while in good favor at a church he continued to pastor for longer than the 3 years... but then something happened, and half the congregation was gone.
A lot of these splits happen over matters far, far smaller that the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, as you've noted. And I don't know why, although I've heard the most inane reasons for individuals changing churches. Part of it, of course, is our increased mobility - 2000 years ago (or even 200) your donkey didn't want to carry over to the next town; and so you had to do all those odd things that Jesus & the New Testament writers went on about, like forbearing and forgiving and understanding, even rebuking and speaking the truth in love; bearing one another's burdens, praying for one another, restoring one another in a spirit of meekness, stuff like that.
It's a little more difficult than specifying dress codes and deciding if the baptism of the Holy Spirit is always accompanied by speaking in tongues or only may be accompanied by said phenomena. (This is the only substantial difference in the doctrinal position of two large American evangelical churches.)
So yeah. I don't know if I helped much, but I think we have a lot to answer for... As to the "DUI" pastor, it may well have been the last straw, but the way I've seen these things happen, they usually don't go out of their way to rectify the situation. I wonder how many were regularly praying for the man?
Blessings,
Tom
Since I started this long winded screed, two others have posted with good 1-liner points!
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
It reminds me of all those ever splitting left wing / Marxist / Trotskyite groups in the 70s and 80s. Each one doctrinally more pure pure than the one they left behind.
Ahh, happy days!
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
What about the Peoples' Front for Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Get a lot of hotheaded, enthusiastic and impatient people (zealots?) in one place and it's bound to happen before long.
If we get people deciding to leave, like a domino effect, and join another church, it is often the younger members of the congregation who have not been at the church very long. Older members usually have seen it all before and are there for the long term, having seen their children grow up and get married there, their parents buried there, etc.
One old lady, faced with a difficult priest, said 'I've seen off five vicars already in my time, and I'll see this one off too. I'm not afraid of him!' Not that the younger, more hotheaded ones heard her, they were already out the door and half way down the street, on their way to a 'better' church.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If we get people deciding to leave, like a domino effect, and join another church, it is often the younger members of the congregation who have not been at the church very long. Older members usually have seen it all before and are there for the long term, having seen their children grow up and get married there, their parents buried there, etc.
Interesting comment about age, in this recent split in a friend's church the people she has told me about leaving (because I might know them - small town) are all young as to that church, some are near 70 but have been in that church only 2 to 5 years.
Few people I know (outside Texans) live in the city they grew up in, so they aren't in the church they grew up on, married in, see their grandfather's name on a window. Maybe a mobile society means more people with less rooted sense of "this is my church" because, after all, they were worshiping God long before they moved to that church, why not worship God elsewhere if that church becomes uncomfortable?
(Does not being rooted in a church correlate with not showing up for work parties etc, or is "who contributes money and labor" a different issue?)
The "people believe the pastor did it just because he was accused" -- I don't know most of the congregation, but the comments on the web page carrying the newspaper article are almost 100% assuming he did it, people around town I chat with almost 100% assume he did it -- I point out he was "known" to never drink, so I believe his story the car swerved a bit because he was punching buttons on the radio -- that has happened to me -- but most people seem to assume arrest = guilt.
The comment about 3 years is interesting, I'd say the local church that splits regularly it's more like 4 years -- I've been here a dozen years and recently saw "my" 3rd split there (I have lots of friends there altho I've never gone there). It's non-denominational, formed maybe 20 years ago, all the adults switched to it from a different church. But I think the most recent Episcopal pastor lasted about 3 years, and a friend was a pastor of a tiny church just under 3 years. Hmm, interesting figure!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
The non-denominational churches here tended to split every five years or so. However, the split are very rarely about one issue, there is usually a whole cocktail of trouble brewing under the surface. The main reason is that non-denominations tend to be in a position where everything is negotiable except for a few key theological concepts. I find that most of the local "non-denoms" are either Baptist-lite, Calvinist-lite or Pentecostal-lite. Theology is not a big part of what they do, but self-righteousness is, which is why the alleged DUI is believed.
One of the local non-denom ministers jokes with me that the quickest way to get fired in a non-denominational Church is to condemn the prevailing sins in the congregation. You are safe in a white-bread, hetrosexual protestant congregation to gay-bash, but you cannot breath a word against divorce and serial monogamy. Interesting that!
Episcopalians are usually pretty split proof unless someone pulls the pin on a particular hot button issue. In the 1870s it was Ritualism, in the 1960s it was the big swing left, in the late 70s it was the WO and the new BCP, in the late-nineties and early-00s it was the gays. However, these tend to be windows of instability, rather than on-going issues, which is the major difference betwen splits in non-denoms and mainline denominations.
The final factr is the churches nowadays tend to be gathered from a rather transient community. Folks move a lot more than I used to. My own parish has a hardcore of long term residents, but most have moved here and joined the church since I became the Rector ten years ago. I think this makes for instability and a consumerist attitude to church.
At least, that's what I think.
PD
--------------------
Roadkill on the Information Super Highway!
My Assorted Rantings - http://www.theoldhighchurchman.blogspot.com
Posts: 4431 | From: Between a Rock and a Hard Place | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
If we get people deciding to leave, like a domino effect, and join another church, it is often the younger members of the congregation who have not been at the church very long. Older members usually have seen it all before and are there for the long term, having seen their children grow up and get married there, their parents buried there, etc.
One old lady, faced with a difficult priest, said 'I've seen off five vicars already in my time, and I'll see this one off too. I'm not afraid of him!' Not that the younger, more hotheaded ones heard her, they were already out the door and half way down the street, on their way to a 'better' church.
Could this be an argument for paying less attention to vicars? Or indeed, for not really paying too much attention to what happens in church at all? Should we let the details just wash over us, and not take things quite so seriously?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The problem with that is, at some point people might end up so indifferent as to what actually happens in church that it must be fairly easy to give up the habit of going at all.... We find it hard to reach a happy medium, perhaps.
I should think there are various sociological, psychological and theological reasons as to why some churches are prone to splits. I've read suggestions that at around 200-odd members churches struggle to expand. Perhaps at that point the church becomes too impersonal. Without a strong small group system in place to personalise things such a large church cannot easily grow, and might be susceptible to splitting.
Some commentators imply that the church's inability to empower the laity creates a lot of splits. Many would see this simply as a problem of unrestrained egos, but I think it's more of a structural issue. Churches either rely on a single charismatic leader, or simply run on a pyramid structure with very rigid requirements for advancement. In both cases, it becomes difficult to provide nascent lay leaders with an outlet because those roles are already taken. People may have a desire to be leaders, yet are expected to be submissive and compliant when it comes to the spiritual life of the church.
Class issues have historically had a role to play, in that upwardly-mobile congregations tend to lose their ability to satisfy the needs and aspirations of their most working class members, who then have to break away and set up their own denominations if they want to exercise leadership skills. The professionalisation of the clergy serves the purposes of the middle classes rather than the working classes. The process then starts again, because the gentrification of the church is relentless.
In any case, Protestantism, with its focus on the personal response to God rather than on church tradition and priestly authority, is susceptible to schism. So, I suppose that the further away you travel from Catholic forms of church, the more frequent the tendency towards schism becomes.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could this be an argument for paying less attention to vicars? Or indeed, for not really paying too much attention to what happens in church at all? Should we let the details just wash over us, and not take things quite so seriously?
Wasn't this the argument used about the 9'o'clock service and similar abuses? Leave your brain in the porch and don't question anything.
I think there must be a difference between UK and US here - I've noticed that many US churches are much larger than UK ones. In the UK it's rare to find a church with more than 200 regular attenders. There are some who would say that at about 150+ it's time to start church-planting (perhaps thus avoiding a more acrimonious split later?).
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
One local church of about 150-200 splits every few years, 20% or so leave together and form a new church. (Growing area, lots of room for new churches.) I don't know the causes.
Sounds like they’ve adopted the Cell church model. This is, very simply, when a church will sub-divide into (or plant) another congregation when they reach a certain size. It’s seen as a positive thing. But let’s not worry about that when there’s misery and gossip to focus on, hey?!
It’s important to distinguish between church splits – where a substantial part of the congregation will leave, often to form another church elsewhere or become part of an existing one – and individuals leaving.
Church splits usually happen for the same reasons that individuals usually leave – disagreement with the leadership over a particular issue, clash of personality, desire for a new direction – only they tend to be more dramatic and have a greater impact because of the large number of people involved. Even in splits where both parties are broadly positive about the outcome, “as they’d left in good standing so they could worship the way they wanted” – there are always strong emotions on both sides. Often negative ones!
A look at church history shows that it has always been like that and that no church group is immune to it. When we went to Edinburgh, we had a look around the Museum of Scotland. There was a whole list of church groups that split, re-split, reformed etc over the centuries. It was a bit like something out of Life of Brian! And then there’s the joke about the Welsh man on the desert islands who built two chapels – one to worship at on Sunday and the other the one he didn’t go to.
Individuals usually leave for the same reasons as large groups do. But the impact may not be as great or as long lasting. I think it’s important not to make light of the act of leaving. When I left the church I’d attended for 5 years, it was like breaking up with a boyfriend. You go through the same emotions – anger, hurt, confusion etc – even though I knew it was the right decision. Eventually you get to relief and acceptance … It’s often not something that’s done lightly, even though the reasons may sound quite trivial to an outsider.
Although there are exceptions … One couple left our previous church because they’d had to have building work done on a Sunday. It was the only day that the builders could get a very large crane onto the very small site and get a particular job done without having to close the whole of the town centre – which would have caused chaos! And it was the only day that the council would agree to. The alternative would have been to stop the whole project.
The best response to a church split, it seems to me, is to pray for the individuals involved, listen to them if needed and not add fuel to the fire by repeating gossip etc
Tubbs
[ 19. April 2012, 12:28: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
In the UK it's rare to find a church with more than 200 regular attenders. There are some who would say that at about 150+ it's time to start church-planting (perhaps thus avoiding a more acrimonious split later?).
I'm not sure that the reason that most churches in the UK are that size are due to splits - outside non-denominational circles splits seem to be rare, and a lot of churches seem to top out at that sort of number.
Perhaps people in the UK start to feel that a church is impersonal once it gets to that size, and so it doesn't grow any further?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
Regarding the attitude to the pastor in the opening post -
What does the response of church and community say about the people there? Is there a distinction between those who know him and those who are further removed?
I was recently in a car accident - just bumper bumps on a bend on a country single track road, but because the other party has objected to the insurance company default of 50/50 fault they decided (after the event) to report me to the police for careless driving and I have had to give a formal taped under caution statement to the police.
I needed to tell my bosses and the leaders in my various churches - and have had only positive support and assurance of prayers.
Now all cases are different, but (for some strange reason)my churches trust me and are not concerned about the case except for how it affects my well being. Now the wider community may act differently but at the moment there is no story for the local rag.
It sounds as though people are too ready to believe the pastor is guilty of DUI - so this may just be a conveinent hook to hang their existing vague grumbles on.
As for leaving versus splits - I agree the issues are essentially the same. The big walk out and slamming the door on the way out may make more noise but churches need to watch for the the quiet slipping away of individuals thatmean one day you turn up and realise half the people are missing and you didn't see when and where it happened.
At leaast the mass leaving gives them support and company in the experience and pain of the spilt (though of course it can compound issues). The one by one leavers may find new churches to settle in but many may just drift away, and churches may not even be aware of the trigger issues let alone underlying ones.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It’s important to distinguish between church splits – where a substantial part of the congregation will leave, often to form another church elsewhere or become part of an existing one – and individuals leaving.
Thank you! I was going to make that point, but you beat me to it. One difference is that an individual can leave out of disagreement or for a hundred other reasons; but if a substantial part of the congregation leaves, there is a ringleader probably motivated by personal ambition.
quote:
A look at church history shows that it has always been like that and that no church group is immune to it.
Another good point. I agree with those who call schism worse than heresy. Happily for the rest of us, a fundamental weakness of schism is that it is habit-forming.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
an individual can leave out of disagreement or for a hundred other reasons; but if a substantial part of the congregation leaves, there is a ringleader probably motivated by personal ambition.
I hadn't thought of the ringleader aspect, so I have to muse on it a bit. Of the splits in the church that does it periodically (and yes a friend in the congregation refers to her church as a "mother church birthing new churches thru the splits" and regrets that the splits have neighbors angry at each other) one split the praise band quit -- shortly before Sunday morning, maybe at rehearsal. One split a junior pastor left. A different church the music leader left.
Each of these became head of a new church or house church (of 15 to 30 people). Did they round up others to leave with them because they wanted to set up a group and be in charge? Or did they leave individually unsure what's next, and because they were visible leaders others in the church noticed, missed their music or teaching, sought them out, setting up a new house church was a way of dealing with "where do we go to church now?" Truly I don't know. By the time I hear of the split and new church (or house church) three weeks have passed, a friend is correcting me about where they attend church now, or about who is doing the music now, or inviting me to their new house church.
Some friends quit church and worship God alone at home; if they had been the worship band leaders would others have left because they left? Then their worship at home would be a house church.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It’s important to distinguish between church splits – where a substantial part of the congregation will leave, often to form another church elsewhere or become part of an existing one – and individuals leaving.
Thank you! I was going to make that point, but you beat me to it. One difference is that an individual can leave out of disagreement or for a hundred other reasons; but if a substantial part of the congregation leaves, there is a ringleader probably motivated by personal ambition.
quote:
A look at church history shows that it has always been like that and that no church group is immune to it.
Another good point. I agree with those who call schism worse than heresy. Happily for the rest of us, a fundamental weakness of schism is that it is habit-forming.
Glad to be of service.
Not always in the group that leaves though …
Although to be fair, whilst a few of the splits I’m aware of were caused by individuals trying to either “power grab” or maintain in control, others were caused by part of the congregation wishing to go one way spiritually and the rest wishing to go another. As the two directions were mutually exclusive, one group left and formed the nucleus of another church.
I’m grateful that I’ve never experienced a split first hand. They are always painful to live though whatever the reasons behind them.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
an individual can leave out of disagreement or for a hundred other reasons; but if a substantial part of the congregation leaves, there is a ringleader probably motivated by personal ambition.
I hadn't thought of the ringleader aspect, so I have to muse on it a bit. Of the splits in the church that does it periodically (and yes a friend in the congregation refers to her church as a "mother church birthing new churches thru the splits" and regrets that the splits have neighbors angry at each other) one split the praise band quit -- shortly before Sunday morning, maybe at rehearsal. One split a junior pastor left. A different church the music leader left.
Each of these became head of a new church or house church (of 15 to 30 people). Did they round up others to leave with them because they wanted to set up a group and be in charge? Or did they leave individually unsure what's next, and because they were visible leaders others in the church noticed, missed their music or teaching, sought them out, setting up a new house church was a way of dealing with "where do we go to church now?" Truly I don't know. By the time I hear of the split and new church (or house church) three weeks have passed, a friend is correcting me about where they attend church now, or about who is doing the music now, or inviting me to their new house church.
Some friends quit church and worship God alone at home; if they had been the worship band leaders would others have left because they left? Then their worship at home would be a house church.
Depends on the individual. Not everyone in a leadership role is looking to set up their own thing when they leave. At a previous church the worship leader “left”. (Ahem). Several members of the congregation as well as band members contacted her to see what she was thinking of doing next – and would they be able to join her. She asked them very nicely about who they were following – and reminded them it wasn’t her. She spent a bit of time licking her wounds and then found another church to serve at. Everyone else stayed where they were.
In these situations, her question strikes me as being crucial …
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I think it’s important not to make light of the act of leaving. When I left the church I’d attended for 5 years, it was like breaking up with a boyfriend. You go through the same emotions – anger, hurt, confusion etc – even though I knew it was the right decision. Eventually you get to relief and acceptance … It’s often not something that’s done lightly, even though the reasons may sound quite trivial to an outsider.
Well described. It's always more difficult if you are strongly involved (and perhaps also more likely - if you are strongly involved, you are often party to information and struggles that the more casual churchgoer has no idea about).
One of the main things to remember, though, is never take your problems or criticisms with you into the new church. Leave them on the way somewhere - the new place will already have quite enough troubles of its own, without you bringing yours along as well.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It’s important to distinguish between church splits – where a substantial part of the congregation will leave, often to form another church elsewhere or become part of an existing one – and individuals leaving.
Thank you! I was going to make that point, but you beat me to it. One difference is that an individual can leave out of disagreement or for a hundred other reasons; but if a substantial part of the congregation leaves, there is a ringleader probably motivated by personal ambition.
quote:
A look at church history shows that it has always been like that and that no church group is immune to it.
Another good point. I agree with those who call schism worse than heresy. Happily for the rest of us, a fundamental weakness of schism is that it is habit-forming.
Alogon - just taking your post as a jumping off point as you raise several important issues -
On the subject of multiple departures, I'm sure what you say happens frequently. A ringleader can often be involved. But I have seen the opposite too - where someone comes in and changes things so much that a whole chunk of people leave. They may coalesce around one person who may have done research or articulated the problem they have, but isn't really a leader in that sense. Though perhaps your model still stands if the troublemaker can be on either side.
On the issue of personal ambition, I'm not sure that always applies. I'm thinking now of the priests going into the ordinariate who are facing less pay, possibly going back to work part time and so on. They would meet your "ringleaders" criterion, though I don't think there is any way it counts as a schism. The charge is more often levelled at those who stay until retired and then pope.
Schism vs. heresy. Hmmm. They are both wrong - I suspect they are dangerous in different ways. People I have discussed this with before usually point to the difficulty in reconciling schisms, which is a fair comment. However, I think the danger of heresy is more insidious, that of habituation. In any event it often brings schism along behind it sooner or later. I think both are to be avoided
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Back in my UK restorationist 'new-church' days I lived through a number of large-scale church-splits. They seemed to happen every two years or so after a while. They were all messy, they were all painful.
Looking back, they now simply seem inevitable, part of the territory and a fundamental flaw that is inherent within that kind of approach to things.
The genie is out of the bottle. There's no putting it back in.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I think this may be partially a generational thing. One of the 90-something matriarchs of our church once noted dismissively,regarding some minor kerfuffle or other within the congregation: "Pastors come and pastors go...but this is MY church." Nowadays, as churches have become commoditized and pastor/personality- rather than theology-/ethnicity driven and it's no longer a given or even a probability that someone born into a particular faith community is going to stay there, there's far less "brand loyalty."
Now, there is a positive argument FOR splitting a church once it gets over about 125 members; I can't remember the exact number, but it's theoretically the number of people that a pastor can reasonably be expected to know by name/face and provide pastoral care for. My own pastor belongs to this school of thought.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could this be an argument for paying less attention to vicars? Or indeed, for not really paying too much attention to what happens in church at all? Should we let the details just wash over us, and not take things quite so seriously?
Wasn't this the argument used about the 9'o'clock service and similar abuses? Leave your brain in the porch and don't question anything.
So what's the answer? On the one hand you don't like people leaving their brains in the porch, but on the other, you don't want people to think too much, otherwise they might begin to disagree with what they hear and take that as a cue to go off and start another church....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I think there must be a difference between UK and US here - I've noticed that many US churches are much larger than UK ones. In the UK it's rare to find a church with more than 200 regular attenders.
Yes. A few weeks ago I posted a link to an article that made this observation.
I've now come across an (American) article that talks about the issues that face a church as it reaches different stages in terms of its size:
http://www.alban.org/raisingtheroof/changingSize.asp
I wonder if British churches have particular (structural, cultural and technical) difficulties in dealing effectively with these stages. For example, it looks as though the role of the pastor (and of other church leaders) has to change somewhat once their church gets to about 150 regular attenders. Do British pastors receive adequate training to help them cope with this possibility? I doubt that their initial training helps them to develop the required skill set to manage a bigger church. How do they build a team around them with the right set of gifts? Are they good at delegating? And how do they galvanise congregations that are worried about becoming more impersonal as they grow bigger? British clergy are apparently more introverted than American clergy (no refs for this, but I did read it somewhere), which may make it difficult for them to accept a change in their role.
quote:
There are some who would say that at about 150+ it's time to start church-planting (perhaps thus avoiding a more acrimonious split later?).
Either that, or learn how to anticipate the problems of church growth, and manage them more effectively. Because I suppose that congregational frustration at this stage might lead to church splits, even if noone quite realises that growing pains have contributed significantly to the problems that have arisen.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would expect a cathedral to be a corporate size church, but most parish churches to be pastoral sized.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could this be an argument for paying less attention to vicars? Or indeed, for not really paying too much attention to what happens in church at all? Should we let the details just wash over us, and not take things quite so seriously?
Wasn't this the argument used about the 9'o'clock service and similar abuses? Leave your brain in the porch and don't question anything.
So what's the answer? On the one hand you don't like people leaving their brains in the porch, but on the other, you don't want people to think too much, otherwise they might begin to disagree with what they hear and take that as a cue to go off and start another church....
There is a third approach of constructive disagreement. Some people see disagreement as a threat (some like to be autocratic leaders and not just the head of a democracy), but if everyone is willing to talk it through you might end up with a better church as a result.
I have been in a wonderful situation in the past where the vicar was so comfortable in his own skin, and as vicar of the church, that he encouraged his congregation to be questioning - as it showed they cared. This was the most peaceful time I've ever spent in a church. People could have their say, felt they'd been heard, and then all work together for the common good. It might be a rare model, but it can work.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Now, there is a positive argument FOR splitting a church once it gets over about 125 members; I can't remember the exact number, but it's theoretically the number of people that a pastor can reasonably be expected to know by name/face and provide pastoral care for. My own pastor belongs to this school of thought.
I read soemwhere 200 is the optimal size to be pastored by one clergy person/minister. If the church is to keep that personal ethos.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Could this be an argument for paying less attention to vicars? Or indeed, for not really paying too much attention to what happens in church at all? Should we let the details just wash over us, and not take things quite so seriously?
Wasn't this the argument used about the 9'o'clock service and similar abuses? Leave your brain in the porch and don't question anything.
So what's the answer? On the one hand you don't like people leaving their brains in the porch, but on the other, you don't want people to think too much, otherwise they might begin to disagree with what they hear and take that as a cue to go off and start another church....
We want people to be theologically engaged but not to get involved in personalities and infighting. Too often minor issues get magnified into big things and drag in too many people who are not really involved. It is too easy for debates to become about 'I am right' or 'what I want' rather than 'is this actually important.'
Issues like bullying or spiritual abuse, for example, must always be everybodies concern. other things are a case of don't gosssip or mutter behind backs.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have been in a wonderful situation in the past where the vicar was so comfortable in his own skin, and as vicar of the church, that he encouraged his congregation to be questioning - as it showed they cared. This was the most peaceful time I've ever spent in a church. People could have their say, felt they'd been heard, and then all work together for the common good. It might be a rare model, but it can work.
That's interesting and very positive. However, I wouldn't have thought that many Anglican churches in the UK face the issue of churches splitting anyway. Anglicans are committed to the CofE because it's the CofE; they don't want to be part of a cultish outfit that meets in a hired hall. Maybe the serious evangelicals don't really care, but I was told on another thread that most independent churches are founded by people of other denominations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Splitting in Anglican churches (as far as I can see) tends to be limited to individuals and groups leaving to join already established churches, who they see as offering more what they are looking for in a church. The exception being church planting which (I think) happens mostly in evangelical Anglican churches, and sounds much more orderly and planned than splits due to acrimony.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
We want people to be theologically engaged but not to get involved in personalities and infighting. Too often minor issues get magnified into big things and drag in too many people who are not really involved. It is too easy for debates to become about 'I am right' or 'what I want' rather than 'is this actually important.'
Issues like bullying or spiritual abuse, for example, must always be everybodies concern. other things are a case of don't gosssip or mutter behind backs.
Yet, ultimately, we have to accept that people are free to do as they wish. To me, this is at the heart of Protestantism.
The British Wesleyan Methodists were very schismatic in the 19th c., but I don't see this as a cause for regret. It was an inevitable development in a world where people were trying, in all kinds of ways, to be in control of their own destiny, rather than simply yielding to someone else's control. It gave ordinary people a certain degree of autonomy and a way of responding to churches that were becoming paternalistic and bourgeois. We should remember too that schismatic congregations also worked as chuch plants, sometimes picking up people who were outside the church, or who were at risk of backsliding.
Churches do tend to be rather poor at dealing with conflict. Some commentators find the clergy are notoriously ill-equipped for this. As a result, it's inevitable that some conflicts will become so overwhelming that a split is inevitable. Some churches are quite happy that troublemakers leave; the President of the Methodist Conference in much of the 19th c., Jabez Bunting, didn't care if these loose canons took their 'followers' with them, because meant getting rid of the rot. Today, we're not so cavalier because we fear that the departing people won't be replaced, but maybe we should remember that contented people don't leave a church. If their minister and their congregation can't help them, perhaps it's better that they go elsewhere to deal with their issues.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Splitting in Anglican churches (as far as I can see) tends to be limited to individuals and groups leaving to join already established churches, who they see as offering more what they are looking for in a church.
Is there anything wrong with this? After all, I'm sure that the CofE is quite happy to accept people who've left other denominations for one reason or another. In fact, I recently discovered this old saying: 'the carriage never stops at the meeting house for three generations'. What it means is that by the third generation, members of a nonconformist family have probably returned to the CofE. Maybe this whole thing is nothing more than a cycle....
Going back to schisms, some people feel that they can be unhelpful in the long run because new churches can be very fragile, and their collapse can lead to disillusionment with religion. But if so, then this must have been the case since the beginning of Christianity. The historical churches that are around now exist either because they managed to obtain state support, or because other circumstances benefitted them rather than their competitors. There were plenty of other church movements that died out on the way. Did they all leave a swathe of disillusioned atheists and agnostics in their wake? I would imagine that there are other contributory factors that might lead to this outcome.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Splitting in Anglican churches (as far as I can see) tends to be limited to individuals and groups leaving to join already established churches, who they see as offering more what they are looking for in a church.
Yes, I've seen a group leave one Episcopal church and all go to a different one, but it's been because of a specific critical theological issue. The one time I saw a TEC split and start a new group was in an isolated town, no alternative TEC existed within 100 miles so they formed a home group doing morning prayer. I don't know what their status was in the eyes of the Bishop.
I've read several books about the problem of a church that is 50%+ people who grew up together and their lives are deeply networked, the rest are newcomers who are not part of any network nor know how to find each other and form their own network. I've seen that a newcomer in an old church with a large core can teach Sunday school and sing in the choir and serve on a committee for several years but if the spouse dies no one from the church goes to the funeral or brings a casserole to the survivor, that's what the core who grew up together do for each other.
If it's mostly newcomers who leave, the core scorns the leavers for lack of commitment to the church but the core never embraced the newcomers as fully part of the church. So maybe a split sometimes reflects failure of the old core to reach out to and integrate newcomers.
The new house church recently invited the kicked-out pastor to preach (at least sometimes, they have no money to pay him a salary).
Which points to another -- If for some people "it's my church right or wrong, we'll survive any problems" and for other people "I'm not going to participate in mistreating the pastor (or some group like blacks or disableds) by remaining part of this church, I'll start another that accepts him," maybe (as in so many human discords) both are right?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
I've seen that a newcomer in an old church with a large core can teach Sunday school and sing in the choir and serve on a committee for several years but if the spouse dies no one from the church goes to the funeral or brings a casserole to the survivor, that's what the core who grew up together do for each other.
That pretty much sums up how my parents' church treated my mother, who'd been a member there for over 40 years but whose family wasn't part of the founding core of immigrant farmers, after my dad died. It was as if she ceased to exist.
Ironically, that same congregation has now had, thanks to a local resort area, a 20-year influx of downstate retirees who've effectively diluted the power (including the gatekeeping/exclusionary power) of the Old Guard and have certainly changed the church's reputation in the area as an insular Old Country outpost. I did hear of a few disgruntled old families who, as the church began expanding and changing, retreated to a smaller, more countrified and conservative Lutheran church several miles away, even though it was in a different church body. I wonder what their reception has been like.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I still keep thinking of the example of Sarah Palin's Alaskan home-town where there are apparently 70+ churches for a handful of hundred people. Some of these churches must be very tiny.
It does make me wonder what the heck is going on ... but then, what's the solution?
I've read something by an Anglican Bishop in Pakistan bemoaning the fact that in some Christian villages there are up to 11 or 12 competing groups or denominations and that the surrounding Muslims point to this as yet another factor to remain wary of the Christians. 'See, they can't even agree among themselves ...'
I'm wondering whether it would be instructive to compare all this with what goes on in other religions. I used to live in Leeds within walking distance of four synagogues - each of a different flavour from Orthodox through to Reformed - with shades of grey between the two extremes.
I can't help but think that there would have been many more varieties of Christian than that within the same geographical area - perhaps half-a-dozen churches plus Christians who commuted a wee bit to find the church of their choice.
At one time I knew half-a-dozen Christian families within a few hundred yards of where we lived - four of which went to completely different churches.
I agree with SvitlanaV2 that it is an inevitable consequence of Protestantism and whether it's good , bad or indifferent, we appear to be stuck with it. The instructive, and interesting thing, perhaps, about the Methodist model though, is that by the mid-20th century most of the Wesleyan splinter-groups had been reabsorbed (at least in the UK) into the parent body.
Whether this is a precursor to inevitable implosion, I don't know. But I can't think of many other instances where this has happened. So far, in the instance of the restorationists and independent charismatic churches they tend to go separating and separating with some spinning off into hyper-space.
Individuals and families have returned to the 'mainstream' - with the Baptists as the default re-entry model in my experience and lower numbers have returned to the historic Churches. But I don't yet see any mass exodus back the other way.
I do see a greater sense of collaboration and ecumenism at a grass-roots level though - which is encouraging.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Gamaliel: quote:
I've read something by an Anglican Bishop in Pakistan bemoaning the fact that in some Christian villages there are up to 11 or 12 competing groups or denominations and that the surrounding Muslims point to this as yet another factor to remain wary of the Christians. 'See, they can't even agree among themselves ...'
Hmm, I believe I'll be able to bend the ear of a Pakistani bishop in a couple of weeks. Perhaps it will be the same bishop. It would be an interesting topic.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
The various flavours of Methodism began to join back together when they started to go into numerical decline. Perhaps it's unfortunate that it takes decline for the spirit of unity to take over. (I'd be interested to hear of situations where this isn't a factor.) But then, some might say that spiritual decline is often what leads to schisms in the first place. Fragmentation often occurs as the spiritual zeal of the parent body dies down. Consequently, fragmentation is described by some commentators as a sign of secularisation. But perhaps this argument makes more sense in Europe than it does in America or elsewhere. In America, the plurality of churches is apparently a spur to religious involvement, so perhaps it's rather unwise of us to hope that the differences between them will all disappear.
As for your comment about Muslims using Christian disunity as an argument against Christianity - what about Muslim disunity? There are plenty of mosques all around the inner city here, but I'm told that they have little to do with each other. There's no authoritative body to establish what should be taught at all these mosques, and no formal training that the imams are expected to undertake (although I believe there is some FE and HE training available in certain parts of the country). Sometimes the mosques are noticeably established on ethnic lines, and sometimes they appear to specialise in particular ministries (for example, to students, or to converts). As far as I can tell, though, every mosque is an independent body, answerable to its congregation (and surely to its sponsors)but to noone else.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for your comment about Muslims using Christian disunity as an argument against Christianity - what about Muslim disunity? There are plenty of mosques all around the inner city here, but I'm told that they have little to do with each other.
Yes I'd agree. Though this tends to be a picture that is more prevalent in migrant Islam. In places like Pakistan the variations are fewer and most mosques operate more or less in sync with each other, there are reasons for why we would not want to implement things in the same way in Christianity.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Not strictly a "church split" story - but when I went to live in Portugal in the late 1970s I was horrified at the vast number of tiny Evangelical denominations that existed, each with their own offices, structures and magazines. This was a direct result of the proliferation of foreign mission agencies - each with their own histories - which had come into the country following the 1974 Revolution.
And so there were several different kind of Baptists (British and American), and various varieties not only of Pentecostalism but specifically Assembles of God (British, American and Brazilian) ... and so on.
Utterly wasteful of resources and totally confusing to outsiders!
Perhaps things are better now.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
There's the argument that a plurality of denominations undermines Christian witness, but we have to remember that atheists can attack both plurality and unity: when Christans agree, the argument is that we're merely sheep, following meekly behind whichever pastor has the biggest flock. So I'd be wary of saying that if only we all attended the same church, with the same hierarchy and the same pastor, the unbelieving world would be deeply impressed. I don't think so, myself.
Are Catholics admired because of the size of their church and their loyalty to it? Modern Christians of all stripes have a certain admiration for Catholic unity, but secular observers only seem to see a large number of people enslaved to a single oppressive system. Unity alone won't save Christianity from attack.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not just thinking about defending the faith from attack, but more in terms of the sort of thing that Baptist Trainfan has identified - wasteful use of resources and so on.
Sure, I agree that the apparent unity of Roman Catholicism doesn't protect it from attack ... and I'd also argue that the RC Church is often its own worst enemy and that the institution of the Papacy has much to answer for in that respect.
Neither do I see the putative unity of the Orthodox Church to be very much in evidence on the ground. They're all at each other's throats over jurisdictional politics ... something the RCs point at and gloat over at times.
But it really doesn't make any sense to me to have so many flavours of Protestantism all operating in parallel to one another. Here where I live there's not a cigarette-paper of difference between the URCs and the Methodists. I really don't see any point in them continuing as separate entities.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Splitting in Anglican churches (as far as I can see) tends to be limited to individuals and groups leaving to join already established churches, who they see as offering more what they are looking for in a church.
Is there anything wrong with this?
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this. Merely making an observation.
Oh, and Belle Ringer, if I should ever be a surviving spouse, please don't bring me a casserole. We're all different, and some people would hate it. Trust me.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
Splitting has always seemed to me to be a high-stakes strategy. After all, Judas was the first splitter in the New Testament. In the battle of ego against God, ego mostly wins (as we have so often been told all, except the pastor have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, or at least for the pastor it was a long time ago, and it's been sorted). I think we'll all be judged on the poverty of our excuses, and I find that scary ...
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But it really doesn't make any sense to me to have so many flavours of Protestantism all operating in parallel to one another. Here where I live there's not a cigarette-paper of difference between the URCs and the Methodists. I really don't see any point in them continuing as separate entities.
I agree that despite a plurality of churches, there isn't really a lot of choice in the British church 'scene'. From that point of view, a lot of the so-called differences are fairly superficial. (But surely, from your point of view, that's a good thing! Do you really want a large bunch of churches each totally different from each other, each with its own wacky ways? Me, I wouldn't mind. But that doesn't seem to be your position.)
Many years ago I used to hear about a possible union between the URC and the Methodists, but the topic seems to have disappeared completely. I don't know why. Of course, these two churches were never one church to begin with, so the issue here is nothing to do with splits or reunions. The problem is that URC structure is very different from Methodist structure, and since it's structure that makes these two churches distinctive, they're unlikely to want to give that up.
On the positive side, Methodist/URC LEPs seem to work fairly well, and with both denominations declining, there are likely to be far more of these local arrangements in the future. I think it's far easier to get an LEP going than to try to merge two different national institutions.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure - yes, I agree that LEPs work well with both Methodists and URCs, but in some places I've seen closer links between the URCs and the Baptists. It depends on the ministers and personalities involved and also which 'tradition' within what became the URC they're coming from.
Mind you, both the URCs and Methodists like most UK nonconformist or Free Church groups have Anglican roots if you go back far enough ...
So they share a common DNA to that extent, albeit from different flavours of Anglicanism.
You raise an interesting conundrum about my position ... in that I'm not actually sure what my position is, other than to eschew whacky ... but then, some people would find what floats my boat rather whacky too. It's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Oh, and Belle Ringer, if I should ever be a surviving spouse, please don't bring me a casserole. We're all different, and some people would hate it. Trust me.
LOL, OK, you're off my personal casserole list. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's not about the casserole, or flowers, or cards, or offers to do the laundry or babysit the kids, or any other specific *thing*, it's about expressing recognition of loss and caring for the survivor.
Because the core know each other they quickly pass the word among themselves of an illness or death within the core, and respond with words and deeds of caring. The newcomer who isn't networked in church probably isn't networked outside the church either if they are new to the town, and is too alone in times of loss which are also (often) times of extra work. So very helpful to have a few people express caring!
Somehow we EXPECT a church to be community enough to give some of those expressions. Many (most?) of the people my age I know who dropped out of church, it was because of the hurt from lack of any expression of caring (any acknowledgement at all) from church individuals when they got a cancer diagnosis or their spouse died.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Now, there is a positive argument FOR splitting a church once it gets over about 125 members; I can't remember the exact number, but it's theoretically the number of people that a pastor can reasonably be expected to know by name/face and provide pastoral care for. My own pastor belongs to this school of thought.
Ugh. Our Conference leadership (particularly +Willimon) believes quite the opposite: It takes at least 125 to support an elder (in our system, one who is ordained presbyter). So all small churches are encouraged to grow to be 125 or more. Some churches can share a pastor with another church in order to make the 125, but then you have the problem of sharing a pastor between two or more unique congregations.
The small churches don't trust the Bishop because they feel like he's just looking for excuses to close any church smaller than 75 or so, and the Bishop isn't too sure of the small churches because they won't do something or other he wants done. Of course if they didn't think he was going to close them at the drop of a hat (and drop the hat himself), they might be more inclined to do what he asks.
As for "multiplication by division", the UMC has not had the same problem that our Baptist, Pentecostal, and non-denominational friends have had. I think it may be partly due to the rule that no new churches can be started without the express consent of the Bishop. So a bunch of people can leave a church, but the resulting "offspring" can't be United Methodist. Of course, that doesn't stop some churches splitting and forming "Congregational Methodist" or "Independent Methodist" churches. Nor does it stop whole churches leaving the Conference (usually sans-building, since we have a trustee clause which states that the local congregation holds the building in trust for the Annual Conference). But I think it does help that we have a clearly defined system of polity (contained in the Book of Discipline) and commonly held beliefs. It's a bit harder to split when everyone believes pretty much the same things.
The bad part about splitting is that the splinter groups now have three problems. The first is that they've just split off "to show the others!", but in actuality they're hurting no one but themselves. It's the same as carrying a grudge against someone. The second is that now they often cannot afford the same level of pastoral care that they had previously. The new church is small, and unless there are some deep pockets, the economics of the situation dictates that the new pastor earn less than the first one. The third is that if a family is willing to split from one church to form another, they're going to be willing to do so again when something rubs them the wrong way. So we get this culture of perpetual splits, where anger and anxiety is not resolved and worked through but instead is transferred to a new system.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
