|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: On Leaving a Church
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Stoker
As I read your reasons for leaving I am seeing three warning signs of an unhealthy group.
For other warning signs, see this link. The link will also give you suggestions on what to look for if and when you are ready to connect with a faith group.
You don't have any obligation to the pastor or his wife to explain why you are leaving. Simply send in a letter asking for a peaceful release.
The reason why other congregations may want to see if you have a peaceful release is to be sure that you are not any form of discipline.
An example: in my previous community there was a man who liked to volunteer for nearly every community VBS program, even if he was not a member of the congregation sponsoring the event. Turns out he was a pedophile. Once he was arrested and found guilty, the congregation he was a member of excommunicated him. After he returned to the community he started going to a newly formed congregation. The pastor of that congregation was not aware of the man's history. Since excommunication is a public act, I advised the new pastor to contact the man's previous congregation to find out what happened. In the end the pastor of the new congregation continued to minister to the man, but the congregation did place some severe restrictions on how the man could relate to the congregation.
In this age of litigation a congregation has the duty to protect its members from such people. If the new pastor had not found out about the discipline the man was under, he would have exposed the youth of his congregation to unwanted sexual advances which would mean the pastor and congregation could have been held liable for any fallout.
Yes, ask for a peaceful release. That way, if you should decide to join another congregation, there should be no hesitation for the receiving congregation to receive you as one of their own.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
My wife and I left a small church about 3 years ago. We were both very involved with most of the ongoings of the church, so it was harder to extricate ourselves. We did it gradually over about a month by simply stopping some of the things we were doing and finding others to do them in our place if needed (it's surprising how many "necessary" things can simply be ignored). I finished a term on the parish council and simply opted not to be on the ballot for the coming year.
Then we just left. We were there one Sunday, and not the next. Our last Sunday, I placed a box in the pastor's office with my copies of the financial records and council meeting notes (he had the same copies already) in case he wanted to pass them on to someone else since my time on the council was ending. Otherwise, that was it.
I've never looked back and Mrs. 'lizard and I are so much happier now.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
Once you have decided to leave (as you have) I'm not sure that raising the reasons are very constructive. As part of the leadership presumably you've expressed your views - and the majority of the leadership team have different views. Let that go, otherwise it becomes a battle of being right or wrong.
A previous thread on this subject had some very wise advice from (I think?) Lamb Chopped, as follows (sorry about the Christian jargon - but if ever has a place, this is the place! No-one can argue with it... also, sorry LC if it's not you or I am misquoting):
Be enthusiastic. God is leading you into a new season. Thank them (genuinely!) for what they have contributed to your spiritual journey over the past X years. Ask them to pray for you as you move on to what God is giving you, just as you will pray for them.
They may (probably will) try & get you to come up with specifics that they can argue with you about. Don't go there. Stick to the fact that, over a period of time, you have felt that God is leading you somewhere new. Be enthusiastic about it! Thank them again for helping you to grow and develop etc.
Repeat as necessary.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, another problem is that people are attending church less often anyway, so it must take much longer to establish whether or not they have a problem. I hear that 'regular' attendance now doesn't mean every week, but every fortnight, or less often, in the UK at least.
And ministers only get to their churches say once a month in this area so I find it hard to notice if that is the one week someone is visiting family away or if they haven't been around at all.
So I am dependant on news from others, saying that in these small communities people get to know if someone is in hospital.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
As churches are grouping together, the clergy and readers know the congregation less and less well. We have 4 churches in our group with a priest, a deacon, two readers and a handful of retired clergy - they all jump on the merry go round of the rota each month, all of them trying to cover all of the churches some of the time. In addition, we are supposed to be working with the next group along, as a 'Mission Community', so get all their merry go round staff on the rota as well. The congregation have trouble trying to learn all of their names, let alone them ever getting to know the congregations. There is something that strikes me as terribly wrong about this approach.
Concerned Parishioner: 'So and so has left the church'.
Reader: 'Who's he?'
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think one problem is that churches often don't like to pry. We're eager to complain about churches that pester people who stop coming; churches with aspirations to be respectable really don't want to get a reputation for doing that.
The challenge is to find a middle way. Unfortunately, it's yet one more issue that the clergy and lay leaders aren't trained to deal with. The only thing I've come across that tries to address it in a practical way is Back to Church Sunday. Having an official event like this makes it acceptable to get in touch with people who've left. But it's not enough, is it?
You're too polite. It's not that they aren't trained to deal with it (although that's generally true)-- it's often that leaders don't want to deal with it. They are under pressure of time to deal with that which is urgent, and potentially unpleasant conversations are not high on their priority list.
La Vie en Rose makes a useful point, that families are tracked more carefully than individuals.
A church isn't just the leaders though, is it? A church is the whole congregation, who should be looking out for each other. Think of the good samaritan, or the lost sheep, or the sheep and the goats: all those parables involved people being proactive, going out of their way to help others. Yes, it's a balance and heavy shepherding is creepy, but if we care about or brothers and sisters in Christ, we need to be looking out for their welfare, not just idly musing "Oh, I haven't seen so-and-so in church for a year, he was looking a bit depressed wasn't he, I hope he's somewhere nice now."
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The British Methodist Church has a system of pastoral leaders. Each one is meant to have a number of church members in their care. I don't know how frequent contact is meant to be, but the fact that this system exists should mean that no Methodist church member can simply disappear for ages without anyone paying attention to what's happened to them.
The system has its failings, but other denominations don't seem to have anything better to offer. I mean, if someone hasn't turned up for months and wasn't especially close to anyone in the congregation (possibly by choice), whose job is it to ring them? Most people in the congregation probably won't even have their phone number. Is it appropriate for phone numbers to be handed round without permission? What if you end up with an embarrassing situation whereby 3 or 4 people end up ringing, because no one knows who else has done so?
In the CofE there's no real concept of membership, so how do you get a phone number out of someone? How do you establish whether or not someone has psychologically inserted themselves into a congregation, or is happy to be on the fringe, free to come and go at will even if they give the appearance of being settled?
Some kind of system is required. The notion of 'church family' doesn't automatically mean that people are going to be in touch with each other. Plenty of people today are remiss about keeping in touch with their families!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the CofE there's no real concept of membership, so how do you get a phone number out of someone?
That depends entirely on the CofE church in question - there are plenty that operate using the pastoral model that you describe - one might even say that they were doing it first.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
chris stiles
Well, there you go. I was referring to something an Anglican clergyman supposedly said, but perhaps it was just a subjective comment.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
As a start, there is the Electoral Roll - if people who wish to associate themselves with the church, to the extent of people enquiring if they're OK when not seen for a while, then it could be a useful list, used as a basis for pastoral care. Unfortunately, it has long been associated with voting and calculating parish share, so many people won't sign up.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Tracking of families & individuals brings another common occurrence to mind: the spouse (usually husband) who stops going while the rest of the family continue.
I was I that place. Wife would tell me that so and so asked after me but did they ever speak? No. Churches tend not to be very bloke friendly at the best of times. I know there are others who avoid the lovey-dovey Jesus is my boy friend song singing.
If you want to engage men you have to do so as individuals not just as a family unit.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In the CofE there's no real concept of membership, so how do you get a phone number out of someone?
That depends entirely on the CofE church in question - there are plenty that operate using the pastoral model that you describe - one might even say that they were doing it first.
One issue that the CofE has is that anyone who lives in the parish is entitled to be on the electoral role of the Church whether they attend or not. Arguably this is one of the downsides of being anstablished Church.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Not anyone. They must be over 16, baptised, and not (I think) 'a member of a church not in communion with the C of E'. Though I have heard of some Methodists and others with dual membership.
Surely no-one would choose to be on an electoral roll unless they were either a regular worshipper or had an axe to grind with the current regime. So I don't see what difference establishment makes in this case.
I have never come across a formal request for 'transfer' between parishes. In Anglican understanding the Church is not the local parish anyway; 'membership' = baptism. Obviously a parish priest might informally commend people to a colleague if s/he knew that they intended to worship in another congregation.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
If you want to engage men you have to do so as individuals not just as a family unit.
Yes. Do I see it happening? Not a hope.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not anyone. They must be over 16, baptised, and not (I think) 'a member of a church not in communion with the C of E'. Though I have heard of some Methodists and others with dual membership.
Surely no-one would choose to be on an electoral roll unless they were either a regular worshipper or had an axe to grind with the current regime. So I don't see what difference establishment makes in this case.
I have never come across a formal request for 'transfer' between parishes. In Anglican understanding the Church is not the local parish anyway; 'membership' = baptism. Obviously a parish priest might informally commend people to a colleague if s/he knew that they intended to worship in another congregation.
But seeing that Baptized may mean being 'done' as an infant and 'regular' could mean twice a year (Christmas and Easter) there is plenty of space for more nominal members that are not really known unless they happened to be a local notable such as the Lord of the Manor.
It is probably more true of rural/ traditional parishes that Evangelical/ modern churches.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Avila:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Actually, another problem is that people are attending church less often anyway, so it must take much longer to establish whether or not they have a problem. I hear that 'regular' attendance now doesn't mean every week, but every fortnight, or less often, in the UK at least.
And ministers only get to their churches say once a month in this area so I find it hard to notice if that is the one week someone is visiting family away or if they haven't been around at all.
And, when you do finally ask, you get told either that you are "pressuring" people and "interfering in their lives" or else that they are "hurt" because you "should have noticed that they had been ill". It's a minefield!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
I'm following this with interest. We've (finally) decided to leave a local church. We're going one more service and then never come back. We have no intention of telling anyone anything. The friends we have there we can keep in touch with as we choose.
The few years we've spent their have caused no small stress on our family life.
Goodbye and good riddance.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Not anyone. They must be over 16, baptised, and not (I think) 'a member of a church not in communion with the C of E'. Though I have heard of some Methodists and others with dual membership.
Surely no-one would choose to be on an electoral roll unless they were either a regular worshipper or had an axe to grind with the current regime. So I don't see what difference establishment makes in this case.
I have never come across a formal request for 'transfer' between parishes. In Anglican understanding the Church is not the local parish anyway; 'membership' = baptism. Obviously a parish priest might informally commend people to a colleague if s/he knew that they intended to worship in another congregation.
But seeing that Baptized may mean being 'done' as an infant and 'regular' could mean twice a year (Christmas and Easter) there is plenty of space for more nominal members that are not really known unless they happened to be a local notable such as the Lord of the Manor.
It is probably more true of rural/ traditional parishes that Evangelical/ modern churches.
My situation is definitely the latter - even if it's your first time, you're recorded, listed and "followed up". I can't tell you the pressure a regular member/ attender is under and how it can crush you to be expected to be at every Service, Bible Study, Prayer meeting and CHurch social. I'd love to feel 'off the radar'!
There's is a conference tonight between Mrs Stoker and I to resolve a firm plan; watch this space.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Heavy shepherding is definitely an issue in some churches. There's a vast gulf, though, between your sort of treatment and the ones where you can simply vanish without explanation (or in cases such as mine, a pretty obvious unspoken explanation that shows things are badly wrong) and be deafened by the silence for months on end.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The British Methodist Church has a system of pastoral leaders. Each one is meant to have a number of church members in their care. I don't know how frequent contact is meant to be, but the fact that this system exists should mean that no Methodist church member can simply disappear for ages without anyone paying attention to what's happened to them.
The system has its failings, but other denominations don't seem to have anything better to offer. I mean, if someone hasn't turned up for months and wasn't especially close to anyone in the congregation (possibly by choice), whose job is it to ring them? Most people in the congregation probably won't even have their phone number. Is it appropriate for phone numbers to be handed round without permission? What if you end up with an embarrassing situation whereby 3 or 4 people end up ringing, because no one knows who else has done so?
In the CofE there's no real concept of membership, so how do you get a phone number out of someone? How do you establish whether or not someone has psychologically inserted themselves into a congregation, or is happy to be on the fringe, free to come and go at will even if they give the appearance of being settled?
Some kind of system is required. The notion of 'church family' doesn't automatically mean that people are going to be in touch with each other. Plenty of people today are remiss about keeping in touch with their families!
Hang on a minute - there's a very strong network of pastoral care in most baptist churches that has been operating on this basis for very many years. We have a team of 15+ here
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
That's good to know. I suppose the difference is that such teams are part of the Methodist 'system', whereas other churches seem to develop them on a congregational basis.
The obvious question is, if we've all got these brilliantly functioning pastoral teams how is it that people are falling through the gaps, disappearing for ages while no one pays much attention?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hazeldean
Apprentice
# 17706
|
Posted
Having read this, I wish to remind you that this is more complicated than may appear. There is nothing weirder than people who disappear from a church and then complain that no one called or approached them to ask why. If you want to leave, a mature and appropriate way to do it would be to simply say so, even by letter, email, etc., and to give a reason that does not take a swipe at someone. There is no necessity to give a reason. As a parish priest, I find it difficult to know whether people are just on vacation, having a heavy workload, etc., or really departing. These days when people attend sporadically, it is easy to offend people by asking why they aren't there. I have found that some people leave for no reason other than to see what will happen or to get attention. This is sometimes true of troubled people or those who want to find a reason to leave and someone to blame it on. They disappear without explanation and complain after the fact that no one followed up. After many uears of ministry, I have not found that there is a foolprooof way to deal with this. Quite frankly, if someone wants me to call them so they can tear a strip off me personally, I'm not sure that I am obligated to put myself in that position. If they want to tell me something, they are free to do so. The question is-will they come back after deciding to leave if someone calls them? Probably not, but it may be good for their ego or an opportunity for them to administer some kind of parting shot. If there an issue of liturgy or church policies (e.g. sexuality), the approach might be different. If people leave just to test a priest or congregation, that is quite silly. I have known "church-hoppers" who made clergy (and other) lives miserable for their enjoyment. After hurting a congregation and perhaps damaging clergy reputations or even vocations, they would leave just for the fun of being nasty. Spite was their hobby. Also, since when is this the priest's job? Often he or she is the newest member of a congregation and doesn't know people. However, if another member of a congregation told me that someone might like a call and can give me some background, I would not hesitate to do so.
Posts: 24 | From: Ottawa Canada | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PD
Shipmate
# 12436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
If you want to engage men you have to do so as individuals not just as a family unit.
Yes. Do I see it happening? Not a hope.
I had a bit of a surprise a few months back when I looked out from the reading desk and saw 8 men and 1 woman at morning prayer, this increased to 9 men and 3 women at the Communion service that follows. My two early services are consistently MOTR-Low, said, with a minimal amount of ceremonial and vestments, with a straightforward homily on the Epistle or Gospel. My preaching style is unemotional, and leans towards a High Church Evangelical position theologically.
I have not monitored the later service as closely, but it is usually close to 50-50, or a slight majority of women. It is a simple sung Eucharist with a tendancy towards some fairly robust old fashioned hymns.
The Wednesday morning services have a similar demographic to the earlier services on a Sunday.
I am not sure what this is telling me - maybe nothing!
PD
[ 10. July 2013, 04:54: Message edited by: 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
|
|
Hazeldean
Apprentice
# 17706
|
Posted
When we consider people leaving, there is often the assumption that there is something "wrong" with the clergy or parish. There are many reasons why people leave anything or anyone and they have much to do with the persons themselves. I have noticed that people who feel the desire or need to leave just don't want to admit it. They wouls rather blame someone and free themselves of responsibility for this decision. If anyone asks, they have a built-in reason which may have little to do with reality. It's especially annoying when people who want to leave wait for something to happen or someone they can blame and leave in a huff when all along they were just looking for an excuse to do so.
Posts: 24 | From: Ottawa Canada | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's good to know. I suppose the difference is that such teams are part of the Methodist 'system', whereas other churches seem to develop them on a congregational basis.
The obvious question is, if we've all got these brilliantly functioning pastoral teams how is it that people are falling through the gaps, disappearing for ages while no one pays much attention?
Thanks. First of all, we haven't all got such teams. Then, if we have, some churches use them incorrectly - they've got them because they have to have them: mere existence is no proof of effectiveness.
As a minister I've seen people join the churches I'm in, I've seen them leave. No one joins because they don't like the way I do things, some leave because they don't like ..... etc. By decisions I've made, I've created an environment where people may leave: by my attitude I've perhaps done the same although no one has yet told me so.
I do try to make sure that no one is "missing" who hasn't been contacted. In most cases, a phone call or e mail has resulted in affirmation - in many of these a phone call has brought to light a real need which has been addressed. In a few cases, a MYOB response has been expressed - and not always by those who you'd see as fringe people.
For some, disagreement can only be solved by division - repentance and saying sorry just isn't in the game plan. If I disagree wit them, then I'm a) not listening and b) destroying all they stand for -- what they really mean is I won't let them have their own way because it is not helpful for the rest of the fellowship.
For others it's just to move on -- wherever possible do it with grace and love.
In some cases a church just won't listen to the truth: this is what the OP seems to be saying. If you have tried hard and you can honestly say you've sorted all your "stuff" out and what you're left with is a non negotiable - then leaving is the best (most spiritually fruitful) option for you. It might - possibly - shake up the church and its leader(s) - but don't hold your breath: they have done this one before and have loads of techniques to affirm your departure.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hazeldean:
Having read this, I wish to remind you that this is more complicated than may appear. There is nothing weirder than people who disappear from a church and then complain that no one called or approached them to ask why. If you want to leave, a mature and appropriate way to do it would be to simply say so, even by letter, email, etc., and to give a reason that does not take a swipe at someone. There is no necessity to give a reason. As a parish priest, I find it difficult to know whether people are just on vacation, having a heavy workload, etc., or really departing. These days when people attend sporadically, it is easy to offend people by asking why they aren't there. I have found that some people leave for no reason other than to see what will happen or to get attention. This is sometimes true of troubled people or those who want to find a reason to leave and someone to blame it on. They disappear without explanation and complain after the fact that no one followed up. After many uears of ministry, I have not found that there is a foolprooof way to deal with this. Quite frankly, if someone wants me to call them so they can tear a strip off me personally, I'm not sure that I am obligated to put myself in that position. If they want to tell me something, they are free to do so. The question is-will they come back after deciding to leave if someone calls them? Probably not, but it may be good for their ego or an opportunity for them to administer some kind of parting shot. If there an issue of liturgy or church policies (e.g. sexuality), the approach might be different. If people leave just to test a priest or congregation, that is quite silly. I have known "church-hoppers" who made clergy (and other) lives miserable for their enjoyment. After hurting a congregation and perhaps damaging clergy reputations or even vocations, they would leave just for the fun of being nasty. Spite was their hobby. Also, since when is this the priest's job? Often he or she is the newest member of a congregation and doesn't know people. However, if another member of a congregation told me that someone might like a call and can give me some background, I would not hesitate to do so.
I see where you are coming from.
But do the stories in [URL=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 15 &version=NIV]Luke 15[/URL] have anything to say about how we deal with those who wander off?
What if the missing person is a distinct introvert or shy and has real difficulty in opening up a conversation?
Is the leader primarily responsible for ensuring that the flock share the responsibility for pastoral care of each other?
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
We have had, on occasion, announcements, from the pulpit or in newsletters, declaring that if people are ill or cannot come for some other reason they should let the parish office know - as the church is large the clergy cannot be expected to just know without being told. It think this started because someone was doing the whole 'I'm hurt because I didn't come for a few weeks and nobody noticed' routine and these announcements are made to try to pre-empt that happening again.
When someone leaves who is in a major role, as a church officer or on the PCC, it is quite obvious as they have to formally hand in their notice. With other members of the congregation it is very difficult to ascertain why they stop coming. In my church, people often drift away only to return years later and carry on as if they have never had a break. All very confusing - I guess people just lead busy lives.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
Chorister: this sounds like we [the whole church]have a dysfunctional ecclesiology and wonky Christology too. It is a long way removed from a group of people holding everything in common or of a group of disciples following their rabbi.
I know lots of people say that online church can't be done because it is not a proper community. But what you describe is like an internet bulletin board with people coming and going with barely a word.
And who are we following? A remote webmaster or personal Lord and saviour?
TBH SofF Hosts, Admins and long term regulars do a better job than some flesh and blood churches. No. I mean bricks and mortar churches- baked clay and cooked lime might have more life in them.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We have had, on occasion, announcements, from the pulpit or in newsletters, declaring that if people are ill or cannot come for some other reason they should let the parish office know - as the church is large the clergy cannot be expected to just know without being told. It think this started because someone was doing the whole 'I'm hurt because I didn't come for a few weeks and nobody noticed' routine and these announcements are made to try to pre-empt that happening again.
This is why I think small groups (housegroup, cells, call them what you will) are so important. Not that anyone should be forced into joining one, but all should be strongly encouraged to join one. That way, it's much more likely that people will realise if something is wrong or simply notice if someone doesn't show up to anything church-related for a couple of weeks.
Yes, there are dangers - the whole heavy shepherding thing, for a start. But I think we've got to actively encourage the formation of community in our churches, else we're missing out (IMO) on a key part of what it means to be the body of Christ.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
But seeing that Baptized may mean being 'done' as an infant and 'regular' could mean twice a year (Christmas and Easter) there is plenty of space for more nominal members that are not really known unless they happened to be a local notable such as the Lord of the Manor.
Well quite. But I don't see what it's got to do with establishment.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[QUOTE] This is why I think small groups (housegroup, cells, call them what you will) are so important. Not that anyone should be forced into joining one, but all should be strongly encouraged to join one. That way, it's much more likely that people will realise if something is wrong or simply notice if someone doesn't show up to anything church-related for a couple of weeks.
While I can see (and have experienced) the value in smaller groups, I am already alarmed by the 'strongly encouraged' comment. Why? Why should anyone feel compelled to go? SCK, I'm sure you are trying to encourage people, but 'strong encouragment' puts me right off and reminds of the charismatic-evangelic circles I have worked so hard to recover from. It's an essental part of charismatic model: create a selective culture by emphasising the aspect of 'belonging' and identify of the self through that group.
Just a thought about language.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
While I can see (and have experienced) the value in smaller groups, I am already alarmed by the 'strongly encouraged' comment. Why? Why should anyone feel compelled to go?
Point taken, Komensky, but I stick with my choice of words, I think. People shouldn't be treated any differently from other members of a church if they don't want to get involved in a small group, but I'm very much in favour of frequent reminders that small groups are considered very important.
Then, of course, small groups actually have to be treated by the church leadership as important! Just two quick examples - groups could be given responsibility for certain elements of the church's activities, or given a budget to allocate as they wish to good causes.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
But seeing that Baptized may mean being 'done' as an infant and 'regular' could mean twice a year (Christmas and Easter) there is plenty of space for more nominal members that are not really known unless they happened to be a local notable such as the Lord of the Manor.
Well quite. But I don't see what it's got to do with establishment.
I think it is a symptom of being born into or belonging to a state church by default rather than confession. I bet that other denominations have a similar problem (such as Roman Catholics). May not be such an issue with Evangelical, Pentecostal Charismatic Churches (EPC). It may not be such an issue in a post-Christian culture where one has to consciously join or belong to a church either.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hazeldean:
When we consider people leaving, there is often the assumption that there is something "wrong" with the clergy or parish. There are many reasons why people leave anything or anyone and they have much to do with the persons themselves. I have noticed that people who feel the desire or need to leave just don't want to admit it. They wouls rather blame someone and free themselves of responsibility for this decision. If anyone asks, they have a built-in reason which may have little to do with reality. It's especially annoying when people who want to leave wait for something to happen or someone they can blame and leave in a huff when all along they were just looking for an excuse to do so.
I fear, Hazeldean, that most of the leaving I know about happened in the context of church politics, liturgy, and the priest's difficult personality, and it was all very unpleasant. Believe me, there was a lot of blame to go around (and this was in Ottawa). While some of the departing may have had personality issues, that would have been marginal and exceptional.
It would not surprise me, with the emotions involved, if some express themselves poorly or excessively, but in such circumstances, there is great benefit for all if the churnee makes clear why they are leaving. Nobody should be under any illusions as to what is happening and where each party's responsibility lies.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
The debate around language and choice of words is interesting and very relevant.
"Strongly encouraged" is a classic:
Encourage is a positive word and as Churches, if we're doing things right, then we will encourage each other and we will be encouraged. To use SCK's example, I will be encouraged by attending an active and caring small group by the very virtue of it being those things.
However, when our Pastor is telling people that he "strongly encourages" them to be involved in a small group, the sentiment changes. What he is really saying is "I think you should be in a small group because that is my view of what a good church member looks like". So do you see that He's not really encouraging in the positive sense.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
A church isn't just the leaders though, is it? A church is the whole congregation, who should be looking out for each other. Think of the good samaritan, or the lost sheep, or the sheep and the goats: all those parables involved people being proactive, going out of their way to help others.
Yes, and the people in those parables are the group leaders - the 99 sheep don't search for the one that's lost, the shepherd does. The sheep and goats don't separate themselves, the shepherd does it.
If you want to be the leader of a congregation - the priest, the pastor, the elder, the shepherd - they you're going to have to accept that that role includes being the one who goes off to find the ones who are lost. Because if you just leave the sheep to look after each other, sooner or later they're going to realise that they don't need a shepherd at all...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hazeldean:
When we consider people leaving, there is often the assumption that there is something "wrong" with the clergy or parish. There are many reasons why people leave anything or anyone and they have much to do with the persons themselves. I have noticed that people who feel the desire or need to leave just don't want to admit it. They wouls rather blame someone and free themselves of responsibility for this decision. If anyone asks, they have a built-in reason which may have little to do with reality. It's especially annoying when people who want to leave wait for something to happen or someone they can blame and leave in a huff when all along they were just looking for an excuse to do so.
Victim blaming.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hazeldean
Apprentice
# 17706
|
Posted
I knew someone would say "victim blaming", but that is not what I am saying. Who is, in fact, the "victim"? Is it a term we should even use? People who work on congregational life, conflict, etc. say that relationships and individuals are complicated, which goes for clergy and laity. In his book "Never Call Them Jerks", Arthur Paul Boers speaks of issues like projection, family of origin, etc. he warns clergy that they are as likely as lay people to have their issues that affect how they deal with conflict. There are indeed "difficult people", clergy and lay, so no one is being called a victim. Unhealthy relationships and congregations are a system. It's a bit like a family where there is conflict-a wise person knows that there are two sides (at least) to any story. I am simply saying that we often assign blame and people leaving often want an "out". Wouldn't it be better if there weren't labels and attempts to blame others? Here is a link to this book from the Alban Institute.
http://www.alban.org/bookdetails.aspx?id=870
Posts: 24 | From: Ottawa Canada | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
I think it is worth reflecting on the two sides of a person leaving a church: As a lay person, even a heavily involved lay person, it is relatively easy for me to throw my toys out of the pram and quit.
A member of the clergy does not enjoy the same freedoms and could be trapped in their position; not able to vent their spleen and have livelihood, home and their family at risk. Their departure or handling of the situation could affect far more people. We people should cut the leadership a bit of slack sometimes.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I do not know this book by Boers, an excellent and thoughtful writer. We are often unable (certainly in Anglican circles) to identify that there are differences in perspective and theology and that sometimes they are not easily bridgeable--- especially when we don't want them to be. In many cases, we are simply unable to identify conflict, let alone handle it productively.
(As an aside,many of my clergy friends still find it difficult to wrap their heads around the strength of loyalty to a specific setting and place-- as one of them noted, we're off to another altar every 7-10 years -- and the degree of trauma involved in a departure. Of course, there are the church-hoppers to whom this does not apply.)
My sentiments on the church-leaving phenomenon is that the churnee needs to sit down, figure out exactly why they are uncomfortable to the point where they cannot stay, and then let parish leadership know. It should go without saying that this needs to be done as objectively (and kindly) as possible, but emotions can make it difficult. And sometimes, parish leadership are so committed to changes that they are in a very deep place of denial about their role
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PD:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
If you want to engage men you have to do so as individuals not just as a family unit.
Yes. Do I see it happening? Not a hope.
I had a bit of a surprise a few months back when I looked out from the reading desk and saw 8 men and 1 woman at morning prayer, this increased to 9 men and 3 women at the Communion service that follows. My two early services are consistently MOTR-Low, said, with a minimal amount of ceremonial and vestments, with a straightforward homily on the Epistle or Gospel. My preaching style is unemotional, and leans towards a High Church Evangelical position theologically.
I have not monitored the later service as closely, but it is usually close to 50-50, or a slight majority of women. It is a simple sung Eucharist with a tendancy towards some fairly robust old fashioned hymns.
The Wednesday morning services have a similar demographic to the earlier services on a Sunday.
I am not sure what this is telling me - maybe nothing!
PD
While this is good to hear, the fact that some places do buck the trend does not mean that the trend is not still there. It also doesn't mean that the service style or churchmanship or heating level is the reason. The reasons may be complex.
And, as a whole, the church is very poor at engaging with men. I am not slagging you off PD, it just frustrates me when some people - not specifically shipmates - argue that certain general trends are not an issue because their church does not reflect this.
--------------------
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
|
|
Hazeldean
Apprentice
# 17706
|
Posted
The issue may or may not be about change. I once read that everyone in the parish is either on the inflow or the outgo to one degree or another. The "outgo" may not mean leaving, but it may be less participation. Sometimes just plain burnout may be the issue. No one has mentioned the issue of Faith itself. It may about where a person is spiritually. On a different tack, Boers mentions the fact that dysfunctional people find churches that will accept them and give them power that they cannot get elsewhere. Unfortunately, nice church people don't know what they may be in for and pussy foot around that person to be "Christian". One thing clergy say is that, when someone appears and says they weren't very happy in their former parish, the best response might be "Well, you won't be happy here either". Leaving a parish doesn't necessarily change who people are and their problems.
Posts: 24 | From: Ottawa Canada | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
(As an aside,many of my clergy friends still find it difficult to wrap their heads around the strength of loyalty to a specific setting and place-- as one of them noted, we're off to another altar every 7-10 years -- and the degree of trauma involved in a departure. Of course, there are the church-hoppers to whom this does not apply.)
An interesting aside! Perhaps it highlights the dangers of expecting the clergy to do church on our behalf - as laypeople are often temped to do - because the perspective of the clergy is often very different from that of the laity.
Can the clergy be effective leaders of a flock when they're only around for 7-10 years? Can they be expected to care all that much about growth or decline in a congregation when they won't even be there to experience the fruits of their labour or their inactivity? And if they themselves don't understand the concept of loyalty to a setting and place, perhaps they have more in common with 'church hoppers' than with settled worshippers?
I read somewhere that it takes 10 years of work to turn a declining church into a growing church. If the clergy are moving on before they get to that point with a congregation perhaps its unsurprising that decline is more of a feature in many congregations than growth is.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Can the clergy be effective leaders of a flock when they're only around for 7-10 years? Can they be expected to care all that much about growth or decline in a congregation when they won't even be there to experience the fruits of their labour or their inactivity?
My experience is that clergy do care very much about the growth of their congregation (both in numbers and as individuals). What they tend to come up against is that long term members of a congregation want to see the congregation grow, but they don't want to see anything change in order to accomplish this. The attachment to place all too often becomes an attachment to fixtures and ornaments, to particular patterns of worship and styles of music. Clergy (along with incoming lay people) can often find this attachment hard to understand and (I'll freely admit I suffer from this) can be dismissive of or underestimate the strength of feeling surrounding it.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
We have had, on occasion, announcements, from the pulpit or in newsletters, declaring that if people are ill or cannot come for some other reason they should let the parish office know - as the church is large the clergy cannot be expected to just know without being told. It think this started because someone was doing the whole 'I'm hurt because I didn't come for a few weeks and nobody noticed' routine and these announcements are made to try to pre-empt that happening again.
This sounds reasonable but there are various scenarios in which an ill person cannot communicate with the parish office.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My experience is that clergy do care very much about the growth of their congregation (both in numbers and as individuals). What they tend to come up against is that long term members of a congregation want to see the congregation grow, but they don't want to see anything change in order to accomplish this. The attachment to place all too often becomes an attachment to fixtures and ornaments, to particular patterns of worship and styles of music. Clergy (along with incoming lay people) can often find this attachment hard to understand and (I'll freely admit I suffer from this) can be dismissive of or underestimate the strength of feeling surrounding it.
I agree with this, and I've been through a similar experience myself. My minister understood the need for change, I think, and I often longed for him to come out and tell the congregation openly why the church had to change or die. But he never did this. And of course, some of the powerful old-times in the church had no taste for change. When congregations are dominated by the elderly, as they are in some denominations, this problem just won't go away.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Maybe, but if they haven't bothered/been able (for whatever reason) to let anyone know they shouldn't then complain that 'nobody visited me.'
[reply to JoannaP]
[ 10. July 2013, 21:17: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can understand South Coast Kevin's emphasis on small groups and it fits with what we know of his ecclesiology. I may start a new thread on this issue as it may create a tangent here if I pontificated on it too much.
But what, I wonder, would SCK say to someone like myself who hasn't attended a house-group for 4 years and have no intention of doing so, despite all the vicar's best efforts to get me to join one. He's given up on 'strongly encouraging' me on that ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I have joined small Lent study groups since then - but only for the duration of Lent and generally these have been RC or liberal-catholic (Anglican) groups. I can certainly see the benefits that the small 'lectio-divina' group has had on the RC parish. I can't commend that group too highly.
But I'd steer well clear of house-groups in the traditonal evangelical/charismatic sense. I'd only end up arguing if I went along and I can do that here without stressing myself and others out unduly ... at least most of the time.
What would SCK recommend to someone in my situation?
--------------------
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
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can understand South Coast Kevin's emphasis on small groups and it fits with what we know of his ecclesiology. I may start a new thread on this issue as it may create a tangent here if I pontificated on it too much.
That could make for an interesting discussion. Do small groups create cliques rather than pastoral support frameworks? Or do you transfer the problem of looking out for non attenders down a level? The senior leaders still need to check if the small group leaders are doing their pastoral duties.
We had a cell church phase about ten years ago. The vision was of a bird with a small wing- the cells- and a big wing- the gathering of a cluster of cells. Predictably enough, the un-aerodynamic picture resulted in the church going around in circles until the proponent went off to a new job. Another difficulty was finding and training enough leaders of the right calibre and getting them to multiply before burn out struck.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what, I wonder, would SCK say to someone like myself who hasn't attended a house-group for 4 years and have no intention of doing so, despite all the vicar's best efforts to get me to join one. He's given up on 'strongly encouraging' me on that ...
Or may be a thread in Hell? Join Old Nick's Home Group maybe? I definitely been in enough hellish home groups to be put off the strongest of encouragements.
I have been at large for about 7 years now
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Small groups actually have to be treated by the church leadership as important! Just two quick examples - groups could be given responsibility for certain elements of the church's activities, or given a budget to allocate as they wish to good causes.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I'd steer well clear of house-groups in the traditonal evangelical/charismatic sense. I'd only end up arguing if I went along.
Clearly, one reason why small groups are of limited benefit in terms of keeping tabs on people is that most churchgoers in mainstream churches just don't want to be in them. Small groups as a concept seem to have remained part of evangelical rather than general church culture. Most churches will have one or two small weekday groups, but if lots of people turned up they'd probably be big groups! They have no theology of smallness as such - it's just their reality.
Whatever the context, if these groups only attract the most enthusiastic/clubby/evangelical etc. church members, they're of no help in maintaining contact with churchgoers who don't attend those groups.
The Midge, your church's experience of small groups is interesting.
[ 10. July 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
