|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: On Leaving a Church
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
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 ...
It's just that in my experience small groups can be of great help in encouraging spiritual growth and facilitating deeper community, so that people don't just slip quietly off the radar if they stop showing up at church activities / services.
Of course, small groups can be the setting for all sorts of unhelpful and even abusive behaviours. And I'm sure there are many churches in which all the small-group stuff is feeble, abusive, cliquey or whatever (or simply non-existent!). If I were in such a situation, I suppose I'd pray for and seek out a few people with whom to meet informally for prayer, encouragement, challenge and the like.
As for people like you, Gamaliel, who have no intention of joining a small group, I'm not sure there's much I can do. Hectoring people who already have a firm opinion doesn't often achieve much, so I guess I'd just mention every now and then how much I benefit from and value my home group. It's up to each of us to decide what's helpful in our discipleship though, isn't it?
--------------------
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 giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
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.
Whether you go for small groups or not, I think delegating at least some responsibility for regular pastoral care (not necessarily crisis situations) is a very good thing.
A minister/pastor/priest has to be an all-rounder doing at least a decent job at preaching, leadership, discipleship training, administration and pastoral care.
In the event that you have a minister for whom pastoral care is not a particularly strong area, delegating some of that responsibility to a volunteer pastoral care team is essential for getting that part of the job looked after well. That team would ideally get some training from outside sources who know what they are doing, such as another minister who is strong in that area (I've known churches to 'trade' ministry training between each other when their leaders have complementary strong areas) or from up the chain in the denomination. The minister still has a role to play, especially when it comes to grieving families or if they must be the ones to administer home communion, but they may find they'll do a better job of visiting if they accompany the volunteer pastoral care contact person on visits instead of doing it alone.
In the opposite situation of a minister who is outstandingly good in the area of pastoral care, having a volunteer team sharing the load is still a good thing. This allows them to use their expertise to mentor and train others so their expertise in the area can be used more effectively than if they were to just do it all themselves and then take their talents with them. A minister who does this well would then be able to spend a little more time working on the necessary areas of their position which don't come to them as naturally, as well as being confident that they would be leaving the church in good hands whenever they are on leave or when they move on to somewhere else.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Don't get me wrong, SCK, I'm not saying that small groups can't be helpful nor that you are wrong to regard them as such. Far from it.
What I am suggesting is that the kind of clubbable model that you are advocating wouldn't have a great deal to offer someone like myself. I'm pretty clubbable - and pub-able - and belong to various groups outside of the church. Which seems a good way to proceed to me.
I think I will explore this on a new thread - but not a Hellish one.
I'm not having a go at you nor your churchmanship, SCK, but what I appear to be suggesting ... and resisting the implications to be honest ... is that whereas churches like yours are likely, in the long run, only to appeal to those who want or need the clubbable, supportive (and somewhat smothering?) atmosphere of small groups and discipleship groups etc - the more traditional churches - as SvitlanaV2 suggests - are likely to do the opposite and appeal to those who don't want or see the need for such things.
In which case we end up with a rather binary divide. Which isn't particularly appealing in many ways but perhaps the reality of the situation ... ?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'll start a new thread.
--------------------
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
I must start a hellish version later. Thinking on it.
--------------------
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 The Midge:
I must start a hellish version later. Thinking on it.
Might start. Freudian slip.
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
I can understand South Coast Kevin's emphasis on small groups and it fits with what we know of his ecclesiology ...
But I'd steer well clear of house-groups in the traditonal evangelical/charismatic sense ...
Of course in the "Cell Church" model (which is not the way I assume SCK's church works), it's not a matter of people joining small groups if they wish to. In this model the small groups are the core of the thing but they meet together for corporate worship.
"Ichthus" used to work rather like this (although the "Cell Church" terminology hadn't been invented) and - dare I say it - so did the original Methodist "Class Meetings". But the se small groups are - as Gamaliel suggests - largely a mark of "enthusiastic" Christianity.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
In the event that you have a minister for whom pastoral care is not a particularly strong area, delegating some of that responsibility to a volunteer pastoral care team is essential for getting that part of the job looked after well ... The minister still has a role to play, especially when it comes to grieving families or if they must be the ones to administer home communion ...
This is exactly what we do, although in our set-up lay elders can, and sometimes do, administer Communion. My predecessor was more gifted pastorally than I am (or perhaps just more conscientious). Our team meets together biannually to compare notes. The main problem is that some Visitors are much better than others ... and guess which of them are more amenable to training?!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Of course in the "Cell Church" model (which is not the way I assume SCK's church works), it's not a matter of people joining small groups if they wish to. In this model the small groups are the core of the thing but they meet together for corporate worship.
The church I'm part of does work like that to some extent. People are free to just turn up on Sunday if they like, but at pretty much every Sunday meeting whoever's leading will mention the housegroups. Our line is that getting to know and trust people is far easier in a small group, and anyone who just comes to the Sunday meetings / services will always be something of a visitor.
I'm also loving the examples of delegated ministry, which I think just makes it all more sustainable. If the pastor / minister / vicar is expected to do or take charge of everything, isn't that simply exhausting for them? Not a healthy approach to creating genuine community and nurturing everyone's gifts ISTM...
EDIT - Apologies, I should probably take this to the thread Gamaliel's just started. Sorry for sidetracking!
[ 11. July 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmmm ... I'm not so convinced that a 'delegated' way of doing things is that unusual in set-ups which have vicars/ministers and so on in more formalised way. I know plenty of clergy who are good at delegation.
But that's a tangent too.
I suspect there's a certain amount of self-fulfilling prophecy going on in SCK's 'loving' of this approach because it happens to fit his model/paradigm so he's predisposed to be in favour of it. That isn't to say that it mightn't 'work' where he is - it might. But I suppose there's a truism here. If you like that sort of thing then that's the sort of thing you're going to like ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hazeldean:
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.
This makes more sense and I repent of my earlier snap judgement. I've finally felt I had to leave two churches in my time, and on neither occasion have I found I wasn't happy in the new church either, because the reasons for having to leave were very real. In the last case I actually on reflection reckon the Rector was doing us a favour; there was no way that the church could really provide a suitable environment for a youngish (by CofE standards positively youthful) couple with young children when the average age barring us was about 106^h^h^h 70. It saddened me, because I want a church for all, not a party or clique church, but I think that's actually beyond what many smaller parishes can actually do.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hazeldean
Apprentice
# 17706
|
Posted
I can certainly see where leaving might be a healthy thing, since not all parishes are suitable for everyone. A parish of elderly, intransigent people who are stuck in their ways and don't really want people to join their "club" may not be for a young family or single person. As a "liberal Catholic" with a liking for good liturgy and music, I wouldn't be happy in a place that was ultra conservative or charismatic/evangleical. Having said that, if you are in a small town or country parish, therer may not be alternatives and clergy/congregations should be aware that they have to appeal to a broader spectrum.
Posts: 24 | From: Ottawa Canada | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
To be fair, the congregation wanted us there. I'd been co-opted onto the PCC to represent a "younger" view (I'm 45!); everything was well meaning but the resources just weren't there. When we needed a break from the kids' work there was no-one able or willing to jump in.
I think that this can be more the problem than intransigence or discomfort with younger would-be congregants; I have a hypothesis that society is now so segregated along age lines that different generations do not actually know what makes other generations tick. I put this down to the rapid cultural changes of the last 50 years or so.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hazeldean:
I can certainly see where leaving might be a healthy thing, since not all parishes are suitable for everyone. A parish of elderly, intransigent people who are stuck in their ways and don't really want people to join their "club" may not be for a young family or single person. As a "liberal Catholic" with a liking for good liturgy and music, I wouldn't be happy in a place that was ultra conservative or charismatic/evangleical. Having said that, if you are in a small town or country parish, therer may not be alternatives and clergy/congregations should be aware that they have to appeal to a broader spectrum.
There is a world out there for which neither form of church is appealing nor suitable. Hence the need for emergent and alternative post-modern, missional churches.
If God is calling someone to be that form of church then could that be a good enough reason to move on? How might church leadership respond to a call to form a new church with out adding another layer to the sediment of schism?
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Indeed such a place is where we ended up. In the CofE this sort of thing is handled under the Fresh Expressions initiative. I think it's a bit of a mixed bag, and as much appeals to those already in the churches but uninspired as to outsiders.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, the congregation wanted us there. I'd been co-opted onto the PCC to represent a "younger" view (I'm 45!); everything was well meaning but the resources just weren't there. When we needed a break from the kids' work there was no-one able or willing to jump in.
I think that this can be more the problem than intransigence or discomfort with younger would-be congregants; I have a hypothesis that society is now so segregated along age lines that different generations do not actually know what makes other generations tick. I put this down to the rapid cultural changes of the last 50 years or so.
This is a much fairer view than saying that the previous church was horrible and rotten, which doesn't go down too well when turning up somewhere new. In many places people would love to welcome new members but don't really know how. The elderly can't help being old, introverts can't help being quiet, formal people can't help being straight-laced. It may be completely impossible for them to offer a different type of church, because it is so much outside their experience and character zone.
Re small groups: they don't have to be spiritual ones. The most successful ones in my church are based on special interests, eg. choir, bellringers, craft group. Perhaps Anglicans find it easier to join small groups based around interests or hobbies, rather than getting together in midweek holy huddles for prayer and bible study. The choir certainly keep an eye out for each other, and no doubt the ringers and craftspeople do too.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed such a place is where we ended up. In the CofE this sort of thing is handled under the Fresh Expressions initiative. I think it's a bit of a mixed bag, and as much appeals to those already in the churches but uninspired as to outsiders.
I followed your link and onto the Black Sheep Article looks cool. I like metal but have gone a bit Jimmy Page in my old age*.
*[I]Holy Crap!
This sounds like bad rap.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
I left a church a few years ago. I got involved, joined the choir, and participated in other activities. However, it was increasingly clear that:
(a) there were major theological differences between 99% of the congregation and me;
(b) the services were disorganized and the rector, while a fine person, refused to write down his sermons or even outline them so he maundered all over the place, and most importantly;
(c) there is a cabal of people who have been attending that church for decades who engage in a power struggle with whoever happens to be the rector. It really poisons the atmosphere.
So I left. I felt sad, because there were some nice things about that church. I did not give an explanation--there seemed no point, as that cabal is not going anywhere, and the 99% of the congregation who believe differently than I do about things like gay people are not going to change their beliefs. I did not expect anyone to "follow up" or inquire about why I left--and no one did, much to my relief. I felt better immediately after leaving, because it was getting more and more stressful to go there.
I felt somewhat heartened afterwards when I confided in a long-time rector at another church about my experience. He told me that the church I had been attending had been troubled as long as he had been in the diocese--and he specifically mentioned that cabal. I was relieved, although saddened, to know that it wasn't just me.
I doubt things will change at that church as long as that cabal is in place.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
