Thread: Watching another church split Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023001
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Doesn't sound as if most of those involved had ever worked out what a church might be for.
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Have you considered that you might be the problem? [Snigger]

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.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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".
 
Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
What about the Peoples' Front for Judea and the Judean Peoples' Front?
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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?
[Biased]

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?).
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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?! [Biased]

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 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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 … [Biased]

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
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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?
[Biased]

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....
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I would expect a cathedral to be a corporate size church, but most parish churches to be pastoral sized.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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?
[Biased]

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.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :
 
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?
[Biased]

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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Fool on Hill (# 12183) on :
 
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 ...
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ... [Biased]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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.
Perhaps not - the URC have recently been meeting jointly with Methodists at some of their "Mission Council" meetings (the most important Council of the URC outside General Assembly, which meets a few time each year).
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
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.
Where I live no new Methodist church is allowed to form unless it has 75 people and can be expected to grow to 300. A town of 2000 people will never be allowed to form a Methodist church because it won't grow to 300. No wonder the little churches with steady membership of 30 feel like the denomination wants them to go away, they know the don't meet the criteria to be formed as a church!

quote:
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!"... 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 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.
I disagree with the first two. I know a lot of people who left a church or were part of a group splitting off. It's always been a personal "I can't live with what's going on anymore." Sadness, anger (on both sides, not just those who left!), but not a hint of "I'll show them, they'll be sorry!"

As to pastoral care, in the split that led to the OP, the split-off group has the pastor, the church they split from has none. That may be an unusual situation but many a house church does just fine in the pastoral care dept. In a smaller group everyone pitches in, everyone is "core group," care (spiritual or physical support) is better than in a large church of people who barely know each other and rely on one professional pastor to do it all. Lay teaching can be excellent, or at least quite adequate (Methodism has a long history of lay sermons, and most denominations have some provision for it, some professionals are poor teachers.).

The "if you left once you might leave again" makes some sense but I think people are less likely to leave a small group they helped form and know everyone. And personally I don't know that any organization is intended by God to be permanent. If a house church forms to meet the needs of some people for a couple years, then disbands, why isn't it wonderful that needs were met instead of people scattering homeless when the old home became unbearable?
 
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I would have thought that if a church is too small, or everybody does everything, you will run into problems with the group dynamic fairly quickly. How do you get through the 'storming' stage of 'forming', 'norming' and 'storming' process? How do you avoid scapegoating and other problematic role formation? How do manage basic group assumptions that interfere with leadership?

One of the things about older denoms, is that they will usually have structures or processes that manage this to an extent.

It is rather like the contrast between established monastic/ religious orders, and a group of well meaning young people who try to set up a religious shared house. It sometimes works, but often goes wrong with painful emotional fallout for those involved.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.
It’s more that the core group will know who to approach to get the word out and get things done. Newcomers are less familiar with the structures so less able to access the support they need. Most Ministers usually make the following points during prayers for the congregation for very good reason:

a) If you are in a situation that needs prayer or practical support, then let X know. And, with practical support, be clear about what’s needed. Don’t leave it for people to guess. Mind-reading is not one of the gifts of the spirit.
b) Don’t assume that someone else will do it. Be the someone else.

Anyone who expects that churches and Christians are somehow “better” at stuff is doomed to disappointment. We’re no better or worse. It may sound brutal, but to paraphrase Steve Chalke, instead of complaining that no one's done <blah> ask yourself why you haven't ...

There’s no difference between smaller and larger churches in this regard either. The percentage of the congregation who pitch in tends to be same regardless of size. Smaller churches have to be more selective about what they do as they have less resources – financial, people etc – and it’s important not to over-burden people or bite off more than you can chew. In larger churches, the fact that it tends to be the same people who do stuff is less noticeable because there’s more of them to do it!


quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
…

quote:
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!"... 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 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.
I disagree with the first two. I know a lot of people who left a church or were part of a group splitting off. It's always been a personal "I can't live with what's going on anymore." Sadness, anger (on both sides, not just those who left!), but not a hint of "I'll show them, they'll be sorry!"

As to pastoral care, in the split that led to the OP, the split-off group has the pastor, the church they split from has none. That may be an unusual situation but many a house church does just fine in the pastoral care dept. In a smaller group everyone pitches in, everyone is "core group," care (spiritual or physical support) is better than in a large church of people who barely know each other and rely on one professional pastor to do it all. Lay teaching can be excellent, or at least quite adequate (Methodism has a long history of lay sermons, and most denominations have some provision for it, some professionals are poor teachers.).

The "if you left once you might leave again" makes some sense but I think people are less likely to leave a small group they helped form and know everyone. And personally I don't know that any organization is intended by God to be permanent. If a house church forms to meet the needs of some people for a couple years, then disbands, why isn't it wonderful that needs were met instead of people scattering homeless when the old home became unbearable? [/QB]
Padre Joshua’s point is valid. Leaving doesn’t always resolve the issue that caused you to leave. It just transfers it somewhere else. And I’m not sure that not wanting to be part of that church there is a strong enough basis for something new. It’s less a church, more a turbo-charged home group or a social club. I’m dubious about your whole premise of a group forming to “meet those people’s needs”. Church isn’t just about having your needs meet. It’s about serving the community, worshipping God together etc etc. Any model of church that's all about Me Having My Needs Met isn't church. It isn't even a home group. It's a social club with Bible study, worship and singing.

Tubbs

[ 24. April 2012, 10:54: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Leaving doesn’t always resolve the issue that caused you to leave. It just transfers it somewhere else. And I’m not sure that not wanting to be part of that church there is a strong enough basis for something new. It’s less a church, more a turbo-charged home group or a social club. I’m dubious about your whole premise of a group forming to “meet those people’s needs”. Church isn’t just about having your needs meet. It’s about serving the community, worshipping God together etc etc. Any model of church that's all about Me Having My Needs Met isn't church. It isn't even a home group. It's a social club with Bible study, worship and singing.
But a church that doesn't meet the needs of its own congregation is hardly going to be able to meet the need of the community.

There is this idea that we should go to church out of a sense of duty, not because of what we 'get out of it'. Yes, I can understand the desire to make Christians less selfish, more outward rather than inward looking, but unless a congregation is well-nourished, its work with other people is likely to be on quite shaky ground.

The late Victorian and Edwardian churches wanted to do all sorts of things for the wider community. They set up all sorts of groups and clubs to bring people into the orbit of the church. But according to some historians, the result was that they didn't devote enough time to the spiritual development of the people already in their congregations. In the end, it became difficult to enthuse and maintain uninspired and declining congregations and also to continue with a range of outside activities that sucked up manpower and money. Sooner or later things were likely to implode....

House churches, megachurches, and everything in between need to be able to build their members up both spiritually and in service. Being a breakaway church probably doesn't indicate whether or not a church is incapable of doing these things.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Leaving doesn’t always resolve the issue that caused you to leave. It just transfers it somewhere else. And I’m not sure that not wanting to be part of that church there is a strong enough basis for something new. It’s less a church, more a turbo-charged home group or a social club. I’m dubious about your whole premise of a group forming to “meet those people’s needs”. Church isn’t just about having your needs meet. It’s about serving the community, worshipping God together etc etc. Any model of church that's all about Me Having My Needs Met isn't church. It isn't even a home group. It's a social club with Bible study, worship and singing.
But a church that doesn't meet the needs of its own congregation is hardly going to be able to meet the need of the community.

There is this idea that we should go to church out of a sense of duty, not because of what we 'get out of it'. Yes, I can understand the desire to make Christians less selfish, more outward rather than inward looking, but unless a congregation is well-nourished, its work with other people is likely to be on quite shaky ground.

The late Victorian and Edwardian churches wanted to do all sorts of things for the wider community. They set up all sorts of groups and clubs to bring people into the orbit of the church. But according to some historians, the result was that they didn't devote enough time to the spiritual development of the people already in their congregations. In the end, it became difficult to enthuse and maintain uninspired and declining congregations and also to continue with a range of outside activities that sucked up manpower and money. Sooner or later things were likely to implode....

House churches, megachurches, and everything in between need to be able to build their members up both spiritually and in service. Being a breakaway church probably doesn't indicate whether or not a church is incapable of doing these things.
You’re distorting what I said. Any institution has to meet the needs of its members. It won’t survive unless it does that. What I’m questioning is whether, as Belle seems to think it should, be the sole focus. There’s other stuff that needs to be held in tension with the needs of the congregation – spiritual development and formation, challenge, service, outreach etc – and a balance reached. To far one way and you’re no different from a social club. To far the other way and you’re a charity. Both are great, but not church imo.

Being a breakaway church doesn't necessarily mean that you're incapable of being church. But it does mean that you need to do some hard thinking and praying about what you are as a community. Not Being Them isn't enough to sustain you.

Tubbs
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Tubbs

Obviously, a church at the beginning of its life isn't going to be able to do everything that a well-established church can do. Churches go through stages. At the beginning you have to work out what your vision is, what your mission is. The answer might not appear straight away, but might develop organically. In fact, I've heard of church plants where the community comes along and articulates what's needed, rather than a new congregation deciding what it's going to offer. The process can be one of negotiation, a conversation between people who established what's possible and what isn't. Sometimes a large crowd of churchy do-gooders isn't necessarily what's required; I heard of a handful of nuns in a council flat offering a highly valued ministry.

I speak as a British person, so I can't talk about other countries, but I doubt that churches that are doing sterling work in the community are likely to end up at the sharp end of a church split. Surely this is more likely to happen if the parent church has started to lose its way, become confused and disunited about its vision. At the very least, a split surely can't occur if a church has coordinated, flexible but also strong and visionary leadership.

Indeed, it would be very interesting to consider the leadership aspect not just of the breakaway churches, but of the churches than they left behind; why couldn't the minister of the parent church exercise good leadership to prevent things going wrong in this way? What styles of leadership tend to cause these problems, and what other styles tend to avoid them? After all, churches are inevitably going to be places of conflict, since they're gathering places for sinners. The question is how churches deal with that conflict. I don't think churches are very good at that.
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Any institution has to meet the needs of its members. It won’t survive unless it does that. What I’m questioning is whether, as Belle seems to think it should, be the sole focus.
Sole? Goodness no, but essential part of being a church, yes.

None of the church splits I;ve seen "close up" fit the model some of you are assuming of angry self-righteous people wholly at fault the main church far healthier than the group who left and formed something new.

The most recent one, the church kicked out the pastor for reasons many thought inappropriate, the split-off group now has the pastor (really good preacher, he's the only preacher I have ever picked up a CD of the sermon to listen if I missed a Sunday), the chief musician, more people than some of the churches in town, and are negotiating to borrow use of a formal building; emotionally they've moved on and are doing church about as well as anywhere I know. The remaining church has no pastor, a lot of angry people still fighting over what they did and what to do next. The splinter group may be better functioning than the bigger group!

In a different church couple years ago the pastor suddenly went crazy charismaniac -- I'm lightly charismatic but not that way! -- miracles on demand that were just for show -- oil appearing in people's hands, no benefit to anyone in these "miracles." About 1/3rd of the congregation were deeply distressed, couldn't just sit there being part of that. Friends of mine had fierce martial battles over whether to stay or leave, she didn't want to leave her friends, he didn't want their children exposed week after week month after month to the awful stuff the preacher was teaching. The whole approach of everything in the church had changed.

The Episcopal church in the isolated tiny town it was the homosexuality issue, that's happening all over the country. The "old church" (about 4 years old) had ordained clergy, the "splinter group" didn't. No fatal bitterness, they all got together on 5th Sundays. The clergy guy has moved away, I don't know if there are still two Episcopal groups or if the one that lost clergy has joined the "breakaway" one in their morning prayer based worship.

If YOUR church suddenly goes "Charismanic" or "God Is Dead" (I've seen both in Episcopal churches over the decades), it's good that some stay and fight to "get their church back," but some are much healthier leaving - and taking their children out of - an unhealthy environment.

Not saying there are no unhealthy break-off groups, just saying don't make pre-judging assumptions about any specific group.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Any institution has to meet the needs of its members. It won’t survive unless it does that. What I’m questioning is whether, as Belle seems to think it should, be the sole focus.
Sole? Goodness no, but essential part of being a church, yes.

None of the church splits I;ve seen "close up" fit the model some of you are assuming of angry self-righteous people wholly at fault the main church far healthier than the group who left and formed something new.

...
I assume nothing. Apart from the something new has to be rooted in the positive.

Tubbs
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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.
Perhaps not - the URC have recently been meeting jointly with Methodists at some of their "Mission Council" meetings (the most important Council of the URC outside General Assembly, which meets a few time each year).
Interesting. I went to the Methodist website and it talked about the URC and the Methodists working together, but it didn't address the issue of institutional mergers. And when I went to the URC website, they actually seemed to be taking a step back from that idea. There seems to be a creeping sense that merging denominations doesn't actually solve the problems of either denomination. This has certainly been the case for both of these denominations, who continued to face decline after their 20th c. mergers.

The focus for the Methodists and the URC now seems to be on encouraging local ecumenical work. This is probably safer, and far less costly and traumatic than trying to create a single denomination.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Any institution has to meet the needs of its members.
Needs? Or wants? We are a consumer culture and used to having our every whim catered to. If this church doesn't support my lifestyle and passions and prejudices, I'll find another.

Going back to what was said earlier, I think it's important to distinguish between amicable splits caused by a growth philosophy (split when the numbers reach such-and-such) or intentional church-planting or calving on the one hand, and not-so-amicable splits caused by theology, personality, or power struggle. It's a lot easier (for me at least) to see the former kind as healthy. The latter kind is either a product of human will run amok, or inability to get along with people you disagree with.

As an Orthodox I probably shouldn't mention the absurdity of a tiny splinter group formed less than a year ago thinking that they, finally, after 2000 years of failure, have properly understood the apostolic message.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Any institution has to meet the needs of its members.
Needs? Or wants? We are a consumer culture and used to having our every whim catered to. If this church doesn't support my lifestyle and passions and prejudices, I'll find another.

Going back to what was said earlier, I think it's important to distinguish between amicable splits caused by a growth philosophy (split when the numbers reach such-and-such) or intentional church-planting or calving on the one hand, and not-so-amicable splits caused by theology, personality, or power struggle. It's a lot easier (for me at least) to see the former kind as healthy. The latter kind is either a product of human will run amok, or inability to get along with people you disagree with.

As an Orthodox I probably shouldn't mention the absurdity of a tiny splinter group formed less than a year ago thinking that they, finally, after 2000 years of failure, have properly understood the apostolic message.
* Snorts with laughter *

The two are always held in tension. Not always successfully. What people want and what they need aren’t always one and the same. People may want a church that caters to their every whim, reflects their lifestyle and prejudices and gives them a big cosy hug … But what they may need is a church that challenges their assumptions, holds them accountable, forces them to play nicely with others and provides the equivalent of a rocket up their arse every so often …

I think your distinction is spot on btw.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :
 
Right, I know that there are many things that cause a church split. And I'm not saying that all cases are unjustified.

However, I'm trying to look at this from a family systems theory standpoint.

Whenever there is anxiety within the system, something has to give way. Something must to relieve the pressure. Normality is to be achieved at any cost. Often the anxiety is relieved by an argument, or by someone changing the way they interact with the others. It may be that someone accommodates the stressor more than they normally would. To quote the Bowen Center website:

quote:
These are the people who accommodate the most to reduce tension in others. It is a reciprocal interaction. For example, a person takes too much responsibility for the distress of others in relationship to their unrealistic expectations of him. The one accommodating the most literally "absorbs" anxiety and thus is the family member most vulnerable to problems such as depression, alcoholism, affairs, or physical illness. (Found here.)
At some point, however, the anxiety rises to the point that the system can no longer contain it. The pastor does something Truly Awful. The music just keeps getting worse and worse. Sister Gertrude has moved from quietly gossiping to being openly hostile. Whatever the final stressor is, it causes someone, or several someones, within the system to want to remove themselves.

This is vaguely analogous to a divorce, an affair, or a separation in a marriage. I say vaguely because there are enough situations where one isn't like the other that one cannot definitively say. However, I definitely have seen splits that were very much like a divorce, and a messy one at that.

In that case, to carry the analogy, the spouse which is leaving wants to take the children and the mutual friends. Sometimes this happens, and sometimes it doesn't quite work out that way. In other words, a church faction that has decided to leave often wants to take as many members as possible, and if the anxiety isn't about the preacher, they will want to take him/her as well. Normality is to be achieved at all costs.

The net effect is that the splinter group, be they right, wrong, or indifferent in their reasons for leaving, are trying to bring about normality, but without the anxiety that began the split.

Often enough, the group that stays behind is glad that they could "run off" the unhappy people, since those who are staying behind see those who are leaving to be the trouble-makers and the ones who caused it. Think about it: If either group admitted they were the cause for the problems, the split might not have ever occurred. Of course, they may not have been "at fault", but they did participate in the buildup of anxiety.

Church splits begin for a reason, and often enough it isn't what the congregation says it is. It may be more than one reason, but whatever it is, it caused anxiety to grow within the congregation to the point that the system could not contain it.

There are several ways to stop it before it happens. The first is that the leadership need to recognize what is happening. Anxiety works best under cover. Acknowledging the anxiety helps to reduce it.

Second, the leadership needs to understand the danger of triangulation. Devolving into a "he said, she said" situation is very harmful. When faced with a triangle, the smart person refuses to take part.

"I'm sorry to hear that Billy's feelings are hurt. I hope he comes to speak with me about it, so that we can work it out."

Usually a simple statement like that (and if the situation warrants, a follow-up with Billy) will end the attempt at triangulation. Jesus told us to go directly to our brother and work things out. This certainly applies here.

Third, the congregation needs to understand that we will never agree on everything, and that giving grace in times of disagreement is important. I cannot tell you the times I have gotten upset over something, only to realize later that I needed to just chill out and let things go their course. If we will covenant together to extend grace to each other in times of anxiety, the anxiety level will rise much more slowly.

After some thought, I've come up with a new hypothesis I'd like to test:

"A congregation with clear oversight by, and accountability to, an outside person or persons is less likely to split than one where there is no accountability or oversight."

What this means is, I'm wondering if having someone to whom to answer (such as a bishop or a synod or a presbytery or whatever you want to call it), who can give oversight in matters of doctrine and polity, means that the church is less likely to split than if the pastor is only accountable to the deacons or elder board of that congregation, and that congregation is accountable to no one but themselves.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Another result of anxieties not being acknowledged, and issues not being resolved, is probably ultimately even more harmful than an obvious split: when people withdraw their emotions and effectively give up. They continue to physically attend the church building, but their hearts, minds, emotions, support and financial backing are all switched off due to disillusionment.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0