Thread: On Leaving a Church 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=025920

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
So,

We've 99% decided to go. Final straw came last night when we realised it was severely affecting our family. Reasons are probably commonplace:

1. Controlling, intrusive leadership.
2. Unhealthy works, suffering and guilt culture.
3. Our joy in Christ has turned into a stressful, burdensome treadmill of church programmes.

The reasons aren't really the cause for this discussion. What we're struggling with is how to go.

It's a smallish church (about 50) and we have friends which I know we'll continue to see. The problem is how to broach it with the Pastor and his Wife, who in line with their controlling and inward looking personality types are going to take it hard.

Any advice or experience out there?
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
The less said, the better. I'm not sure how it works where you are, but very frequently here the church you are joining will request a letter of transfer from your old church on your behalf. If anybody does ask you, just say you've been thinking about it for a while and finally decided to take the plunge. You'll miss them, and they'll be in your thoughts and prayers. Resist the urge to make a point.

My two cents, anyway.
 
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :
 
Stoker;
I had to do that 18 years ago. I just resigned and walked away, heart broken, this act also cost me a relationship but I had nearly 2 decades invested in this church and then it went sideways .
Hang on to your family and look for a supportive caring church blessings
PaulBC
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
It's hard. It depends on the level/intensity of the relationship you have with the leaders but when we left a church after 18 years involvement, I found that it wasn't possible to go without explanation. Assure them it isn't personal.

Beyond that, it's tricky to extricate oneself without getting into an argument. Avoid that at all costs.

The break itself will be tough but once you've done it you'll feel a load lifted off your shoulders.

It's also remarkably quick the adjustment process may take. We settled in somewhere more convivial within a matter of weeks and without a great deal of shopping-around.

Other people's experience will be different. The reasons may be familiar but no two experiences will be alike.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm not sure how it works where you are, but very frequently here the church you are joining will request a letter of transfer from your old church on your behalf.

Really????

Kids get files etc. transferred when they change schools round here (UK). The idea that your church has the authority or right to do that to adults is mind-boggling.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Assure them it isn't personal.

Even if it is?
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
A Churchless Faith by Alan Jamieson has lots of stories about people leaving church and finding other expressions of their faith.

I simply stopped going for a year or so. I afraid to say that hardly anyone seemed to noticed. I may do it again when I finished my tour of duty on PCC.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Hmmm ... fair point, mrs whibley. I s'pose it would depend. If it was personal then yes, we should say so, but it depends on the context and the quality of the relationship.

I'm not sure that, 'We're leaving your church because we find you controlling and intrusive,' would help much but there are circumstances in which that would be appropriate.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
I am rather reluctantly thinking about the matter. The church I attend has two services. One is too early for me and features a music program I feel is ambitious, competitive and perhaps pushy. The other is a non-traditional service later Sunday morning. I usually attend the latter, although I am not crazy about its music program either; there are many traditional hymns I enjoy and miss. Now there is talk of moving the non-traditional service to Sunday evening, incorporating a meal and Bible study. I find this prospect unappealing; I am a dieter and I try to exert control over what I eat. (Why should so many church events involve food?) On top of all this, there is a plan eventually to build a new building elsewhere in town to replace the present building (much-beloved but aging), which might be a transportation problem. Of course, I do like many of the people.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
We had the same experience, after 19 years in a particular church. The church was coasting - same singing, same services year about, just about no outreach or "mission"...but it all blew up when a lady was called to the parish (this was UCC, which had been ordaining women for the best part of a generation by that time)

She seemed pretty decent - cheerful, newly ordained at 50 after a long time of signing for the deaf and other parish works. But the ladies of the parish felt threatened and ganged up. Accusations and insinuations flew. Changes might happen!

In the end, she was booted, while the presbytery basically washed its hands, while bleating. We were seen as "on her side", which was difficult. Once one of the senior ladies of the UCW declared that the minister had committed the sin of "bringing the wrong kind of people into the church", we simply left, without saying much more, and went back to our Anglican roots. (the two churches are less than a kilometer apart, physically, but farther spiritually/theologically.)

There are several who still chat amicably, while others simply do not see us. One meets people where they are, not where one would like them to be.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm not sure how it works where you are, but very frequently here the church you are joining will request a letter of transfer from your old church on your behalf.

Really????

Kids get files etc. transferred when they change schools round here (UK). The idea that your church has the authority or right to do that to adults is mind-boggling.

Really! You have never heard of it! You better just hop over to your local URC and ask them. Seriously done it twice personally and know enough to expect to do it again when I move. How do you know if someone is confirmed unless you do this sort of checking?

Jengie
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
All terribly wise, And it's always personal. Bless them and go. They don't want or need explanations, none work.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How do you know if someone is confirmed unless you do this sort of checking?

I think my current (TEC) place might have asked, and had they asked, I would have told them which Bishop confirmed me, and in which year. I know that I have used said Bishop's name on one occasion in the last decade - but can't remember exactly why.

I am pretty certain that the previous two (C of E) places didn't ask, and equally certain that my current place didn't actually check anything.

I can tell you where my certificate was three house moves ago. I could guess where it was now, but it might take a while for me to put my hands on it.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Jengie Jon: How do you know if someone is confirmed unless you do this sort of checking?
Don't people have a document themselves that shows that they're confirmed?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm not sure how it works where you are, but very frequently here the church you are joining will request a letter of transfer from your old church on your behalf.

Really????

Kids get files etc. transferred when they change schools round here (UK). The idea that your church has the authority or right to do that to adults is mind-boggling.

Really! You have never heard of it! You better just hop over to your local URC and ask them. Seriously done it twice personally and know enough to expect to do it again when I move. How do you know if someone is confirmed unless you do this sort of checking?

Jengie

I have never, ever seen or heard of this happening in the UK. Ever. Things like confirmation are taken in good faith (unless one is going for ordination or something).

I was aware that it happened in some churches in the US but find it fairly horrifying that it's the norm.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
How unbelievable! I mean, what an outrage! Nobody who counts would dream of asking me and anybody who did as some kind of a check would get complete silence and an unbroken stare.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Methodists routinely 'transfer' their membership from one Methodist church to another. It requires some form of contact between churches.

If you're switching just because you've moved house, etc., the transferal is straightforward. But if you're switching because you have some issues with a particular minister or congregation it's slightly more delicate. I know a woman who had to have a chat with the receiving minister before her transfer was formalised. I don't think it offended her at all; it's just the Methodist way. And she's a woman with no problems about expressing herself.

Of course, if you switch denominations that's a different matter. The Methodist membership system doesn't carry over to any other denomination, so I don't think a formal process of transferal would work in that case. Non-Methodists don't magically become members as soon as they start attending a Methodist church, but they'll probably be encouraged to go through the process at some point.

[ 05. July 2013, 23:52: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
The last time anyone asked for proof of confirmation, I was getting married. In my church, members do not marry unless confirmed.

I long ago lost my confirmation and baptismal certificate; I have no need of them at this time in my life - but if I did, I know where I was baptised and where I was confirmed. A simple request to the parishes concerned either by me or my priest would get a response.

Some years ago, I asked my priest if I needed a letter of introduction to a priest in the country I was going to visit and stay for a while. He said not.
 
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :
 
I honestly wasn't sure where Stoker resides. The spelling of programme and realise give me a clue, but are not definite.

The church letter of transfer isn't a nice, thick school file. It's simply a letter stating that somebody was a member somewhere already. This relatively painless procedure certainly does help in situations like the OP. What does it get you? Almost invariably an escape clause from whatever new member induction programs the other church might have, particularly when staying within a denom or its close brethren denoms (e.g. Lutheran to Episcopalian or Methodist or Presbyterian).

Don't want a letter to be sent? Don't tell the new place where you went before.

ETA (Having read Pete's post): We have a proof of baptism request at our church right now for a former member who is marrying at a Catholic church out of state. Also, I know this state will accept church records (for birthdate as recorded at baptism, for instance) in lieu of other evidence.

[ 06. July 2013, 00:01: Message edited by: Olaf ]
 
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :
 
I have found the book Necessary Endings useful in planning and executing a difficult change.

It's written from a business perspective, but has applications to other life situations. The author, Henry Cloud, advocates aiming to make every departure a positive experience for both parties, so that you leave on good terms (as much as possible -some situations will be more difficult than others.)

If there is a poor fit of personalities/skills between you and an organisation, you may not be doing the others any favours by staying around when you're unhappy - and there should be a diplomatic way of framing this so that minimal offence is given. You never know when your paths will cross with a given person again, or whether you might one day be in a position to need their help!

It helps to have a clear idea of what sort of thing you are moving to, so you can emphasise the importance of the change to you, and your determination to follow through. ("We feel God is calling us to church x because of y.")

Another recommendation from the book is to make a list of the positive things (relationships, skills utilised, knowledge gained) to celebrate about the position you're leaving, as well as negatives to grieve/let go of/avoid repeating in future (the negatives are for your own benefit, not the other party's, but the positives may be useful to share in order to make your departure a friendly one).
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
1. Controlling, intrusive leadership.
2. Unhealthy works, suffering and guilt culture.
3. Our joy in Christ has turned into a stressful, burdensome treadmill of church programmes.
...
What we're struggling with is how to go.

Hmmm. These suggest a military approach to me:

1. Sit 'em down.
2. Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em.
3. Then tell 'em.
4. Wrap things up by telling 'em what you told 'em.

Then stand up, thank them for their attention, and LEAVE. Do not engage in dialog, answer questions, or enable any guilt-tripping behavior on their part. They were controlling and intrusive in the duration, at the end it is the cause of your departure, and there is no need to endure further controlling and intrusive behavior.

[Exeunt.]
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I'm not sure how it works where you are, but very frequently here the church you are joining will request a letter of transfer from your old church on your behalf.

Really????

Kids get files etc. transferred when they change schools round here (UK). The idea that your church has the authority or right to do that to adults is mind-boggling.

Really! You have never heard of it! You better just hop over to your local URC and ask them. Seriously done it twice personally and know enough to expect to do it again when I move. How do you know if someone is confirmed unless you do this sort of checking?

Jengie

I have never, ever seen or heard of this happening in the UK. Ever. Things like confirmation are taken in good faith (unless one is going for ordination or something).

I was aware that it happened in some churches in the US but find it fairly horrifying that it's the norm.

Transferring your "lines" is part and parcel of the Church of Scotland and I'm sure it has been for over a century. It's just what happens when you switch churches. I've done it for several house moves and once when I left an unhappy church situation. However, that unhappy situation was public knowledge (it had been in the local newspapers) and I was one of a number of people moving churches, so no explanation was needed.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
"Letters of Commendation" are/were normal practice in the Plymouth Brethren, for those moving house or even visitors on holiday. Scriptural basis is claimed from (at least) Romans 16:1: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae".

In the more Exclusive Brethren at least, a person not having such a letter would be debarred from the Lord's Table. This is not seen so much as a matter of discipline, but of good order. I suspect something similar may obtain within the Strict Baptists and other groups who do not maintain an "Open Table".
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think all this transfer business and letters and referrals and so on depends on how it's done.

I find it hard to believe, for instance, that the process that Jengie Jon describes in URC and Church of Scotland and other presbyterian or mixed presbyterian/congregationalist settings has anything to do with heavy-shepherding.

Similarly with the less formal - but still apparent - arrangement that appears to exist among UK Baptists.

Even in the CofE I've known vicars have a quick chat about people who are moving parishes and so on - but this isn't a matter of checking people's credentials and what have you, often it's simply to check up on how the person's doing - if they're elderly etc - or whether there are any particular pastoral issues.

So the mileage varies.

I get the impression, though, that right across the board in the US things are done a lot more formally in terms of transfers and so on than they are in the UK.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
As for letters of transfer - well, its been common in some Baptist circles for years. Church Secretaries used to have two little books with tear off slips - slips were sent to a church when someone came to you, slips were sent to another church when someone went to them.

Most BUGB churches don't take people by transfer but by acceptance after interview and prayer.

Look at it from another POV. If, as a minister, you suddenly get a couple in your church who make it plain that they've left somewhere else, don't you want to know why - just in case they transfer grievance and pain (and perhaps some disruptive attitudes) along with their presence? It's been known to happen IME.

As to the OP - go and see the people concerned, take a neutral person with you as witness. If there's no hope of reconciliation, then state calmly and clearly why you have to go. Try not to blame. Accept that the people will be hurt but wish them well. Don't,don't get involved in an argument. (You can allow the neutral observer to be MC). Let the neutral observer draft a brief summary of what's been said and send to everyone involved.
 
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :
 
After six years involved in my local parish, and coming towards the end of an interregnum, I had unpleasant experiences with another of the lay leadership and his wife, within a 24 hour period. On top of other things, that led me to flounce, and to refuse any approaches from them.

It meant I stopped seeing people who were my main circle of contacts locally, and it was 9 months before I started going to another church. I still resent intensely what happened, and probably will for a long time.

I offer that as an example of a leaving that didn't go well. I don't have any answers as to what I should have done (though I'm sure others on here will have suggestions!). I never told anyone apart from the locum what was the reason for me leaving.

I am now happily settled elsewhere; a much longer journey to church, but free of the stuff I didn't like. Others from my old church probably still don't understand why I left.

Tell the leadership why you're going. Do it on neutral ground, so that you can leave when you want to. Do all you can to avoid there being a lingering effect on you.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I would underline what others have said about telling the leadership your reasons. They likely are telling themselves that all is fine and that your departure is part of the normal churn of parish departures (that private sector marketing terminology is used cheerfully is a tad worrying- Luke 15 and all that). They need to know why there is a churn as it is either the churnee's fault, in which case they will be able to identify early signs and how to help, or demographic/social change, which they will now be able to plan for, or their own failings, in which case they can now learn and correct. Parish leadership often (usually) has no idea of the personal turmoil involved in a departure.

In any case, it provides the churnee with a way of ending the relationship clearly and leaving it behind. Others have advised ways and spaces of going about it, which are worth looking at.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
If God is guiding you elsewhere, it's enough to say so. If not, but it seems as if people are standing in the way of God's will and therefore everyone is suffering, it may be a case of holding onto patience until God makes it clear to them, or to you.

The loss we feel when leaving a church causes emotional upset. [Votive] May you be comforted and guided.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
It's much easier to leave quietly if you don't have a position of responsibility in the church. If you do, there's a terrible sense of letting people down as well as the strong conviction that you need to get out. Ultimately, though, you have to follow the least damaging path to yourself and your family, whatever that may be.

Even in the CofE, I've heard of a case where a rather controlling priest followed someone in a senior role to their new church in order to rubbish him to his new priest. It didn't go down too well.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
There's probably no good way to leave when you've come to the conclusion it!s not you, it's them ... You could have a meeting or send a letter, but I would keep things neutral, "Prayfully decided to move on ...", rather than, "Leaving because you're choking the faith out of us ...". That makes it easier to keep up with the friends you've got who are still there. And because if the leaders are as you say, they won't listen anyway.

After you've moved, find somewhere new and just be for a bit. You'll ned sometime to get the old church out of your system. And accept that moving on means saying goodbye to friends - the people you'll keep in touch with aren't the ones you think they are.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
Thanks folks, lots of interesting advice here. I think Silent Acolyte's got the best one so far.

I love the phrase 'Churnee'.

Sadly, Chorister, I am in the leadership team, but it's going in a direction I don't want to be associated with - it's like trying to row a boat one way with twice as many guys rowing in the opposite way against you...
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
What surprised me when we changed church was how many people had been aware that we were not happy at the old church, but had not said anything to us about it. They were just pleased that we had found another church where we were happy, rather than leaving the church altogether.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I have some resources on my site www.boredwithchurch.info, which might help you, and please do get in touch if you want to talk it out.

The answer is tell them, do it, and stay firm. People will hate you for doing it, misunderstand you, all the stuff. That is the way of it, because by leaving you are challenging those who stay. And it is personal, because you are saying that this church is not one where you can find God.

BUT, and this is the critical thing, if it is having such a negative effect as you say, you NEED to get out of that situation for your own good. So do it, tell people, and remain firm.
 
Posted by MrsBeaky (# 17663) on :
 
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
quote:
The answer is tell them, do it, and stay firm. People will hate you for doing it, misunderstand you, all the stuff. That is the way of it, because by leaving you are challenging those who stay. And it is personal, because you are saying that this church is not one where you can find God. BUT, and this is the critical thing, if it is having such a negative effect as you say, you NEED to get out of that situation for your own good. So do it, tell people, and remain firm.
I so agree with this: several years ago we felt we needed to leave a church we'd had spent more than twenty years in, as very active members. There was a huge amount of pain for all involved. In retrospect we know we could have handled it better but we also know it was the right decision. I really struggled with the knowledge that many people believe we'd "sold out" and had become woolly liberals etc. We knew we needed to go but one of the hardest things was the loss of relationships: it transpired that many of them were only as strong as the being together for services and projects. Yet I'd given my heart to these people....it still hurts sometimes all these years later. So my advice would be, to be prepared for unexpected loss but stay strong and find a place where you can heal and grow.

I will be praying for you, Stoker!
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ultimately, your real friends will stay in touch. It's right what MrsBeaky says, you quickly realise that a lot of what you felt were close relationships were dependent on shared projects and programmes.

There's a lot of rhetoric in many churches about closeness of fellowship and how they're like a 'family' and so on but the reality is very different.

We managed to keep on good terms with people when we left a church after 18 years, although by the time we left they were getting used to it. Thinking about it, there'd always been people coming and going and we lived through about three or four major splits.

These days, I try to make sure I cultivate activities and friendships outside of church so that if things do go pear-shaped I haven't got all my eggs in one basket, to mix metaphors horribly.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
When I left my church, of a good 150-200 members, in the first 6 months only the 3 couples in my home group contacted me. Even others whom I thought I was quite close to shunned me.

Yes it is hard, but you learn a lot from the process. Not least that some of your church friends are only friends while you can do things in the church. I realised that the level of abusive relationships in churches - not deliberately so, but in reality so - was far higher than I expected. And I was explicitly shunned by someone I had hoped would be sympathetic.

That unconscious abuse is a strain. You are better off out of it.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
SC, you forgot to provide the link. [Biased]

Don't grieve too soon over losing friends - over the years to follow, you may find (as I have done) that, one by one, you can get to know them again on a different footing (a whole church at once is too much, but individual people are manageable at worst and really quite friendly at best - but you do need to give it time).
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I'm not sure this is a compliment to a lot of churches (in fact I'm fairly sure it's not) but leaving tends to be easier for a single person than for a young family.

When I, as a single twenty-something female, walked out of a church and never came back (controlling leadership, attitudes to women I disagreed with, gimungous elephant-sized lumps in the carpet), no one ever noticed. Shortly before that, another young single guy in the same church got cheesed off and didn't turn up for about six weeks. No one called him. When he finally decided to come back, he challenged the pastor: "If that had been a family with small children, you would have called, wouldn't you?". The pastor admitted that he would have done. [Disappointed]

(This is not a comment on all churches, by any means, but it is a comment on the kind of churches that people walk out of.)
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
This raises the issue of what we expect from the other people who attend the same church as us, who we expect it from, and whether we 'do unto others as we hope they will do unto us'.

In the last week, I've heard one woman say 'the people who have helped me the most aren't even churchgoers' and another lamenting as the nearest church to her holiday venue (a very expensive one) couldn't find anyone to pick her up and take her to the church service.

As expectation inevitably leads to disappointment, no wonder people leave churches or don't come in the first place. Are such expectations realistic?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed, I think that's part of the problem, unrealistic expectations. For whatever reason these days, many people expect their church to be able to provide all the support they need in whatever form.

It can cause all sorts of practical problems when people leave.

My brother in South Wales left a church a good 10 years ago now and has only recently started attending services again. In that time he has lost his support group and got into all sorts of financial and other difficulties ... but he's getting out of that now.

He's a bit of a technophobe and so has no idea how to get a telly aerial fitted, how to sort himself out to go online and how to sort out basic car trouble. Previously he'd rely on church people or relatives to help him with all of those type of things.

I could say more, but whilst it's great that the church was helping him with practical stuff, he's left high and dry now he's no longer involved.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
This raises the issue of what we expect from the other people who attend the same church as us, who we expect it from, and whether we 'do unto others as we hope they will do unto us'.

In the last week, I've heard one woman say 'the people who have helped me the most aren't even churchgoers' and another lamenting as the nearest church to her holiday venue (a very expensive one) couldn't find anyone to pick her up and take her to the church service.

As expectation inevitably leads to disappointment, no wonder people leave churches or don't come in the first place. Are such expectations realistic?

No. You’re unlikely to get everything you need from one place or group of people. Some things you’re either going to have find from elsewhere, learn to do yourself or go without them.

People do get disappointed when Christians turn out to be * shock, horror *, just like everyone else – some are wonderful and caring whilst others are selfish, thoughtless etc. Once you learn that lesson, it makes (church) life easier to navigate. Those that don’t learn it either end up travelling from church to church looking for one that’s not full of fallen human beings or give up entirely. (In other news, church leaders are also human and may let you down).

The other expectation is that somehow your fellow Christians will magically know that you’re going through a difficult time and need some help. In church, pretty much like everywhere else, you tend to get help when you ask for it and tell people what’s going on. The Minister may notice that you’ve not been at church for a few weeks, but if that few weeks are during holiday season, s/he may assume that this is because you’re sunning yourself somewhere rather than in hospital.

To paraphrase something that Steve Chalke said during a sermon, “When you’re moaning that no one does …, ask yourself when you last did it …”.

Tubbs

PS This woman expected someone she’d never met from a church she’d never attended to give her a lift there and back to the service whilst she was on holiday. Really?! I assume that her last slave gave notice.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I'm not sure this is a compliment to a lot of churches (in fact I'm fairly sure it's not) but leaving tends to be easier for a single person than for a young family.

When I, as a single twenty-something female, walked out of a church and never came back (controlling leadership, attitudes to women I disagreed with, gimungous elephant-sized lumps in the carpet), no one ever noticed. Shortly before that, another young single guy in the same church got cheesed off and didn't turn up for about six weeks. No one called him. When he finally decided to come back, he challenged the pastor: "If that had been a family with small children, you would have called, wouldn't you?". The pastor admitted that he would have done. [Disappointed]

(This is not a comment on all churches, by any means, but it is a comment on the kind of churches that people walk out of.)

Oh dear [Disappointed]

I had a similar experience. When I, as a (recently) single twenty-something male, left a church, it wasn't anything much to do with the church itself: it was to get away from my ex. I'd had a gnawing worry for a while though, that the church was so frosty that nobody would notice if I disappeared, so I decided to try this out, not tell anyone I was leaving and see how long it took someone to follow me up. This was complicated by me being on the church council, so I had to actually resign from that, so the vicar did know. It took a full eight months for anyone else to say anything though - I ranted on TICTH at the time, here.

As I said, I didn't leave because of the church itself, but that incident really tested my faith: I was going through a shitty time and my non-christian friends, on the whole, behaved a lot better than my Christian friends did. If we're meant to be modelling Christ to the world, surely we can do better than that? [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
You're right. There's a balance. I don't think it's unreasonable to think a church might give someone a call if they go unexpectedly AWOL for several weeks at a time.

I mean yes, the other guy and I had indeed disappeared because we were ticked with the leaders of the church. In my case it suited me fine that they didn't try to get in touch with me and I didn't have to tell them "I've walked out because I think you're a load of hypocrites".

But without following us up, they had no way of knowing. We could just as well have been in hospital. And no one would have cared (we weren't fly-by-nights - we both attended every week for a long time before we left). [Disappointed]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
la vie en rouge

The thing is, most people will be reluctant to make a phone call if they suspect that the person on the other end might tell them they're a hypocrite. It's human nature. Most of us aren't gluttons for punishment! Anyway, I suspect that many church leaders already have some idea of their failings. They realise that their church is inadequate in some ways, but they feel too fearful, hassled, busy or whatever to deal with it.

Churches and ministers are usually poor at dealing with conflict. They'd rather not lose members, but they probably see that as the price to be paid for keeping conflict at a manageable level. No one's trained to deal with conflict, and no one goes into church work, lay or ordained, because they're natural peace-makers.

The system doesn't help churches deal with the relationship difficulties that may arise, and the structure doesn't necessarily help to nurture healthy relationships. Certain personality types tend to dominate, and these probably won't be the kind to place a high priority on openness and straight talking.

I also think that the way we do church on the whole doesn't help to foster close friendships. And some people are perfectly happy with that. But in that case, you can't really expect people to ring you up just in case you've fallen down the stairs.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Also, I think churches have institutional memory of abusive people like the freaks who scolded my (child) brother to tears for sometimes attending another church and thus missing theirs. Not wanting to be busybodies or a scold we then leave people alone when they would have loved to know they were thought of. Sigh.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
You're right. There's a balance. I don't think it's unreasonable to think a church might give someone a call if they go unexpectedly AWOL for several weeks at a time.

I mean yes, the other guy and I had indeed disappeared because we were ticked with the leaders of the church. In my case it suited me fine that they didn't try to get in touch with me and I didn't have to tell them "I've walked out because I think you're a load of hypocrites".

But without following us up, they had no way of knowing. We could just as well have been in hospital. And no one would have cared (we weren't fly-by-nights - we both attended every week for a long time before we left). [Disappointed]

Not excusing it, but alot depends on the size of church. Someone who attends my tiny church where most of the congregation live locally is more likely to get a call from either the Minister or someone in the congregation than someone who attended the large church in outer London that I attended previously.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
Chorister - yes I saw that today as well. Very true. I did a facebook post some time ago that said something like "Churches are full of hurting people, because if you are in a church for any length of time, you will be hurt". I still feel the same.

SvitlanaV2 - I don't entirely agree. I think church churches are generally poor at picking up people who don't turn up. I am the same - I don't always notice when people haven't been there. Whether this is people who have some problems that mean they don't come for a few weeks, or they have left. There is a focus on the church activity and the people who are involved. You will be missed if you fail to do a rota duty, and not otherwise.

That is not intended as a slagging off, just as a comment - so many people are focussed on church activity that church people can be easily missed.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:


SvitlanaV2 - I don't entirely agree. I think church churches are generally poor at picking up people who don't turn up. I am the same - I don't always notice when people haven't been there. Whether this is people who have some problems that mean they don't come for a few weeks, or they have left. There is a focus on the church activity and the people who are involved. You will be missed if you fail to do a rota duty, and not otherwise.

That is not intended as a slagging off, just as a comment - so many people are focussed on church activity that church people can be easily missed.

We don't disagree that much! I agree that people who are 'busy' in the church are missed more than other people if they don't show up. Some people might be okay with that - they might not want to be 'noticed'.

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.

[ 08. July 2013, 15:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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?'
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
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."
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
chris stiles

Well, there you go. I was referring to something an Anglican clergyman supposedly said, but perhaps it was just a subjective comment.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Hazeldean (# 17706) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PD (# 12436) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Hazeldean (# 17706) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Hazeldean (# 17706) on :
 
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
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Hazeldean (# 17706) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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]

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?
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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 ...

[Biased]

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 [Biased]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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]

I'll start a new thread.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
I must start a hellish version later. Thinking on it.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
I must start a hellish version later. Thinking on it.

Might start. Freudian slip.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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?!
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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] [Biased]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Hazeldean (# 17706) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
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.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0