Helping People Leave Your Church Graciously
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, July 16, 2007
- Viewed 403
- (43) comments so far
I think I touched on this last week… I am many times discouraged by the number of stories I hear about churches who are struggling because of people who are fighting tooth and nail against the leadership of the church.
As Craig points out, it’s important to leave the back door open a crack. Some people in your church will, inevitably, keep your church from moving forward. But how do you help these people either get the vision of your church or leave graciously? That’s a great question, and I’m glad that Craig is tackling this subject. We’ll be watching this week’s posts with you… it should be great. Here’s post #1.
QUESTION FOR TODAY: Honestly now… do you feel like your church has people that need to leave? Why do you feel this way? How are these people derailing your churches mission and future?
Craig Groeschel is starting a new series this week at the LifeChurch.tv Swerve Blog on people who need to leave your church. Craig asserts that "occasionally, there are some church members who need to leave for the ministry to move forward. These people might be miserable. Maybe they hate change. Perhaps they care more about their own needs than the needs of others. If someone is directly opposed to the direction God is leading your church, we should do our best to lead them to embrace the vision. If you’ve tried and tried and continue to fail, you may need to gently, lovingly help them find another church." I wholeheartedly agree...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Mark Biel on Mon, July 16, 2007
It would be difficult not to “release” people gracefully with a church name like “Rock of Grace.” I am confident of this - all sheep need a shepherd - but shepherds do not need all of the sheep that “wander” into their sheep pen. I preached a sermon which included the phrase “If you are hearing this message this morning and I am not your pastor - then you are in the wrong church!” Peoiple need to leave if they are going to be part of the problem rather part of the solution. The church is a sacred trust both for the pastor and the flock.
A pastor is not a hireling - he needs to know in his or her heart that they are sent by the Lord to shepherd His flock. The church in turn compensates the gift from the Lord comenserate with both their means and a deep sense of honoring the Lord in a spirit of thanksgiving for His grace gift to them.
Bruce on Mon, July 16, 2007
It is not a question of asking these individuals to leave, the question is how do you do so? Even the most loving encouragment may not be enough. Trust me I know as I have been involved in two churches that have allowed the “frozen chosen” to control things. I empathize with Tim as I have pastored two churches with the similar problems and now am out of the pastorate because of them. When you have individuals that are in direct opposition to the leadership and the vision of reaching the community for Christ how can you loving encourage the opposition to find another place to minister? Normally the opposition has been in the church for years and have a vested interest in the church as well as a following. More times than not they will not leave, but they will withold their money and attack the leadership with barbs of criticism as they mount the opposition. I would be curious as to how you get such individuals to leave especially in an established church?
stephen riches on Mon, July 16, 2007
Well, Todd, you’ve picked a great topic this time. I think in any congregation, there are going to be differences of ideas and opinions concerning virtually everything. I don’t necessarily agree that the solution is to encourage departures, however. Too many people already use this as a fix every time they have a disagreement on some subject, and some church traditions have dwindled historically because of such attitudes and policies. Some counselling / admonition may become necessary, but should always be for a restorative or rehabilitative goal rather than to initiate a departure.
A more serious challenge is faced when there is division among leadership concerning vision, goals, or the process of change, and the congregation, in turn, alligns with one leader or another. And certainly there are even biblical examples of such (Paul vs. Peter; Paul vs. John Mark; and so on).
A brief response to a few of the comments already registered:
Vivian - I appreciate your heart - I too think we need to work through differences with patience and compassion.
Peter
I would suggest that the door of the church IS open, like it or not, and perhaps not for us to close. Of course, Jesus is that door. I appreciate that shepherds or elders of the flock share a responsibility to guard against heresies, but otherwise shouldn’t we rather be committed to building up all who come and to have a desire to turn none away. That increases challenges, I realize. But is this not in keeping with biblical teaching. Who said that if someone forces you to walk a mile, go two miles. And who called Simon Peter “Satan” and urged him to stop obstructing the mission. What worse threat could there be than attack from Satan? But the disciple wasn’t asked to leave the group! Jesus had plans for him, as he does for all of us.
Also, your comment on “the hymn thing” suggests a lack of appreciation for a variety of musical styles. And if that’s your personal experience at the moment, I accept that. But division along musical lines is one of the most unfortunate of realities in the church today. And it is a topic with which I’m intimately acquainted both because of my personal education in the music field, and from personal experience in church situations over several decades years. I am convinced that the compartmentalizing of congregations by musical style makes all of God’s people the poorer, both for the lack of diversity, and for the resulting musical and generational ghettos that are created. Sadly, there is a trend today toward exclusively contemporary church music, so that even music written before about 1990 is looked upon as old and therefore inappropriate. With a life span of less than a generation, therefore, either a change of policy will be needed within little more than a decade, or everyone 35 and over will have to say goodbye to all of the favourite church selections they enjoyed as young adults. Or alternatively, leave the church of their youth in search of a more familiar ghetto. This is the logical conclusion for the current trend. And such a limitation on music (to have only contemorary) is as inferior an experience as those who want to hang on to weary and mediocre traditions of past eras. Only by embracing the best of all eras and styles can we truly have the best. Without such an eclectic commitment, we are destined to embrace mediocrity or worse simply because it fits our stylistic category.
Leonard
The biblical standard is not in any way similar to baseball’s three strikes. When disciples asked Jesus if forgiving seven times was sufficient, Jesus suggested seventy times seven, or 490 times. Clearly Jesus’ message was not 490 times, but rather that there should be no limit to our forgiving, notwithstanding, of course, the responsibilities of church elders, as already noted.
Steve Nestor
The fellow who said that he considered it his role to be to make trouble is in serious need of “studying to show himself approved”.(2 Tim 2:15 - KJV) I don’t recall the listing of “troublemaking” either as one of the “fruits of the spirit” or as a qualification for church leadership. There are, however, many admonitions concerning how such people who are contentious are to be dealt with. This fellow should certainly be cautioned….in a kindly way, of course. Persistent troublemaking would reveal a lack of respect for the teaching of scripture, and suggest that he is one who is really not a member of the flock at all, but rather who is still among the lost whom Jesus came to seek and to save.
The challenges certainly aren’t easy. But I believe we need to learn to accept and embrace diversity, and cope with challenges with an inclusionist approach and attitude wherever possible as long as it does not violate our integrity in terms of our understanding of the message of scripture. And I’m confident that such a commmitment will make all of us the richer for the experience.
Steve Riches
PT on Mon, July 16, 2007
Thank you, Vivian, M & M, and Tye for a boldly challenging what has become the popular leadership-perspective-fad-for-the-day! This is a subject that concerns me, especially how quick and even enthusiastically so many redeemed servants of Christ will choose to avoid, reject and/or get rid of another.
Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that we need to ALLOW people to leave if they are genuinely determined that they cannot stay in reasonable unity. The problem, I believe, is we are too quick to oversimplify and react to these situations. I have many questions that I fear are too often not adequately (if ever) meditated upon before the Lord in these situations.
1.) WHOSE role/place is it, really, to decide whether or not someone should leave a church? Why and under what circumstances?
2.) Is the ‘crack in the door’ really there to give people an escape, or is it really a ‘trap door’ to push aside anyone who dissents or has a different vision?
3.) Why is there rarely any distinction made between what constitutes valid debate, discussion and disagreement versus what is sinful (in Jesus’ eyes, not just my own) rebellion? If the latter, is that not a case for church discipline (truly a lost doctrine) rather than an open invitation “if we don’t like it, leave”?
4.) If Jesus wants us to conform to His image, and love as He loved, then isn’t His example one of SACRIFICIAL love? Where/how is that being applied in these situations? Doesn’t that mean loving and giving to others even as they betray you, argue, defy and throw stones?
5.) How does Luke 19 apply here? PeterD, I think I understand where you’re coming from. However, it seems in your example you’re really talking about the wolves in sheeps’ clothing. But, what about the black sheep? The spooked, independent, wandering or occasionally rebellions sheep that suddenly finds itself separated from the flock? Aren’t we to PURSUE, not open the gate, say goodbye and recommend another sheep pen? I would also challenge the exegesis of “the Church.” Anywhere I read Scripture referring to the church in specific instruction, the context is behavior/belief/attitude within a particular community. That is, the local church. Though no doubt well-intentioned, it seems to me that inviting someone to leave one local church go somewhere else and then saying they weren’t asked to leave “The Church” is a ‘cop-out.’ Like asking, “What does ‘is’ mean?”
6.) 2 Co. 5:18-21. Where does the ‘ministry of reconciliation’ come into this discussion?
Except for instances of gross, habitual sin that, even after Biblical and loving accountability, is not confessed or repented, I just don’t believe we have the right to dis-invite anyone from the fellowship of the local church. And, even in such instances, it should only be with the intent of discipline that will one day (shortly) bring them back into loving reconciliation.
BTW: there was a time I would have largely agreed with most of the above sentiments - but Scripture challenges me otherwise and i have seen far too many individuals and churches devastated by spiritual arrows of this sort.
PT on Mon, July 16, 2007
Steve R,
Excellent! If I had seen your response first, I might not have bothered with mine.
Peter Hamm on Mon, July 16, 2007
Stephen,
Your response to my “hymn thing” example accidentally made my point, but perhaps I should clarify. (Thanks for the insight, though!) I agree that there is much richness in mining ALL of Christian hymnody, from Bach to David Crowder and everything in-between. (Our church does VERY few hymns, but I used TWO this weekend.) I merely used music as an example of a non-essential whose arguments often result in disunity.
However, let’s look at the imaginary story of Jack.
Jack becomes a member of a church that does NOT use the hymns as a rule and even explains its thinking on this in its membership class (whichJack attends) and other communications (which Jack has seen and read and heard), and Jack argues that it should and begins creating problems for leadership because of his view. In that particular case, Jack would be the one who should use the door, and if the vision is kept white-hot, he probably will before it becomes a problem, perhaps even without having a bad experience if everyone behaves maturely. That is really my point. Music is a secondary issue. If it were the authority and inspiration of scripture or the deity of Christ, I would hope that Jack would just get the heck out as soon as it becomes clear, but stylistic issues, if they are already spelled out when someone joins a church, should NEVER be an issue. Done deal. If it ain’t your thing, find something that is. THAT is what I meant…
Troy on Mon, July 16, 2007
I am one of the people who should leave because I dislike the contemporary music, am unhappy with the pasator’ rejection of the dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture, and dislike the debt the church has gotten into with the new building project. However, changing churches is very stressful.
Leonard on Mon, July 16, 2007
Stephen Riches,
I in no way suggest that the bible’s standard is not forgivness, I do however say that asking someone to leave your church is differnt than forgivness. We are not unforgiving becasue we ask someone to not be in the church we pastor or lead, we can be totally forgiving.
Gary on Mon, July 16, 2007
We have had people recently leave our church because of a conflict and it turned out to be a blessing. We found this out after they left. Their lack of heart for our church came to the surface.
stephen riches on Mon, July 16, 2007
Peter:
Thanks for your clarification concerning your personal views relating to the “hymn” example, as well as your hypothetical story about Jack. I’d like to respond concerning Jack, for a moment.
You make a great point about Jack having to evaluate the importance of the issue. As in your example, the deity of Christ vs. a choice of different music….obviously quite different in degree of importance. And you also make reference to Jack arguing and creating difficulties for leadership. And this is an issue of degree also, and a valid point.
But still, assuming that Jack is sensitive in his approach to advocating change, I wonder if Jack should, in fact, decide to stay with his new church and be a positive influence (“salt”) rather than leave simply because the church happens to have an overly narrow musical repertory with which he is dissatisfied. Because no church is going to be perfect, as has been stated already. And another church might be narrow in other ways. And if Jack does decide to stay, and assuming that he were to have a similar background to myself with extensive musical training and experience, should we consider it wrong for him to share his educated views on the subject and make recommendations for broadening the musical spectrum simply because someone who had arrived sooner had previously used their influence and perhaps more limited musical perspective to create a narrower focus in the first place? Would that not be a waste of God’s gifts, and the years of imparted wisdom and experience He bestowed upon Jack?
And, might it even be possible that Jack had actually felt led by the Lord to come to this church in the first place to provide something that this particular church, and not the more like-minded one in the next county, very much needed? Nineveh was far from perfect. But it was in God’s plan to send Jonah to bring about change. And going instead to Tarshish was not an acceptable alternative to God. Jonah apparently had reasons for not going to Nineveh. Ironically, one of them was God’s patience, compassion, and forgiveness of those who change their misguided ways. Jonah felt that warning the people of Nineveh about coming destruction was a waste of time, because God would relent and have compassion if they repented. (It seems to be a twisted bit of logic on Jonah’s part, but there you have it anyway. I suspect that contemporary church goers can probably be every bit as irrational, given the opportunity.)
The point is, that someone has to bear the bad news, in order for change to ever happen. And, change is always perceived by some as bad news. Change is rarely, if ever, unanimously embraced. And although we no longer kill the bearer of bad news, I believe we shouldn’t even encourage the messenger to exit through the open door simply because their message isn’t “mainstream” and might make waves. And yes, I do make a distinction between “making waves” and “troublemaking”, as discussed previously. Jesus’ message made waves. But it was still a message of love, joy, and peace, despite its upsetting revolutionary impact. It was not designed to make trouble, but rather to motivate people to change. In fact, even my message here, is designed to stir up thought on the subject or “make waves”. But it is certainly not intended to hurt or to offend anyone. And even though it has the potential to offend because it challenges existing opinion, I hope it will inspire and motivate in a positive way instead.
One final note. The very word “repentance”, in fact, means change. And that’s why spiritual repentance, like all change in our lives can be such a stumblingblock. In fact, the very presence of a recommendation for change suggests that we currently don’t have it right. And the thought that we could be wrong is sometimes a very difficult concept for many of us to accept. It took the world two whole centuries and the needless deaths of 200,000 more people for the scientific world to accept the value of vitamin C in treating scurvy. And Galileo was ushered out the “open door” by the Church for daring to suggest that the sun and not the earth was at the centre of our solar system. Proving, I guess, that humanity would rather kill the messenger who refuses to be silent on “controverial” topics, or allow ourselves to perish, rather than be willing to change our minds and “live more abundantly”.
Leigh on Mon, July 16, 2007
Yes, there are people who need to leave our church. Sad, but true. The problem comes when people do not submit to godly authority. Don’t be confused I am not talking about a dictatorship, but a plurality of elders who have been reviewed and found to be approved by the body. What happens in our church is mostly related but not limited to doctrinal issues. We are a completely independant non-denominaltional community church that most closely resembles a Baptist doctrinal stand. This information is made available to everyone and is covered in new members classes and yet, there are people who seem to be at our church purely to argue their case and bring division among the body. When this happens, then there seems to be a spiral into the self. I guess that really is the bottom line, people who are self focused instead of God focused try to make church about themselves instead of about God, His Word and encouraging one another in Christ. Anytime the focus of church is other than worshiping God, preaching/teaching His Word and leading people to Christ, then things are out of wack! Church is supposed to be a place of love, however, love does not include enabling those who profess Christ in their sin. A divisive spirit and unity among the body can not co-exist. We all come to Christ in different ways and times and we all have differnt worship styles - why do people choose a church for what it is and then work so hard to change it to be what they think they need it to be? I don’t get it! If the Lord has truly called someone to a body of believers, stop complaining and resisting and start searching for what He has for you in this place.
Peter Hamm on Tue, July 17, 2007
Thanks Stephen.
Good point for sure, but I have encountered far more “Jacks” like I described than you did. You asked [And, might it even be possible that Jack had actually felt led by the Lord to come to this church in the first place to provide something that this particular church, and not the more like-minded one in the next county, very much needed?] Well, on this particular issue, maybe not. To be “led by the Lord” to go and join a church for the purpose of effecting stylistic change or adjustment? Possible, but I doubt it.
As for Jonah, let’s not forget that he was just about the worst prophet of the Blbie. I wouldn’t want to follow his example in ANY fashion. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
But if Jack is able to evaluate the importance of the issue and let things go that have to go, that’s fine. But, again, I have not encountered that kind of Jack. I have encountered the backbiting, complaining, dissent-stirring kind far more often.
Dave Talley on Tue, July 17, 2007
Todd, there was no way I could read all of the comments, but all of them that I read supported “helping” people leave. When I was growing up they called it “running people off.” I’ve seen it happen many times.
—-
My mentor in ministry had a saying though, “We want to ‘win’ with people.” People are our ministry and we reach them where they are. Do some of my people annoy me and get in the way of what I see as God’s plan for our church? Yes! But God is the judge, not me. If He wants them out - He can move them. However, I have no plans of encouraging people to leave. I do what I can to push them to change, but I’m not some kind of Jr. Holy Ghost.
—-
I’m not here to build an organization, a program or a budget. I’m not the holy vision enforcer. I’m the leader - a leader leads, he does not dictate or drive. As Joshua of old, I can say, ‘As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’ If the people follow - GREAT! If they do not, they will answer to God and not to me.
—-
Again, the people do not exist so that “we” can build a church, the church exists so that we can build people. True, Jesus is building the church universal; and, in so doing the local church will grow in number (I hope) and in spiritual maturity. Those who are true believers need me and I need them even if they are obstinate and abrasive. In fact, they need me more if they are backslidden and in a rut than they do if they are on fire and charging the gates of hell.
—-
Sorry to respectfully disagree with the posts that I read - but, I just can’t see the “shepherd” being happy to help a difficult sheep to leave the fold (or swap folds). I’m not for shaming people into staying if they feel God wants them elsewhere, but they ought to know that I am sincerely sad to see them go.
stephen riches on Tue, July 17, 2007
Hi Peter
I appreciate your points. It is certainly true that backbiting, complaining, dissent-stirring people create many problems. And that is both unfortunate and divisive. It can be an easy trap for any of us to fall into when we perceive important issues being unaddressed. And appropriate action by elders is sometimes needed to curtail such tendencies. Perhaps, I might hope, short of suggesting that the open door be used, however.
But as far as Jonah being one of the worst of the prophets, all through history, God chose those in whom we ourselves would probably have taken a pass. Murderers hardly seem fit as leaders of God’s people, for example, and yet that’s who God chose in Moses. We might have chosen Aaron….noted by Moses as the better speaker…..to go to Pharaoh. But it’s not about who we are. It’s about whether or not we are willing to surrender to his will and be used by God. As we know, our Lord was accused of associating with “sinners and tax collectors”, a phrase of the time to denote the most unworthy and despised in society. These were the ones, like Matthew, or Zacchaeus, whom Jesus chose to become “instruments of His Peace”. Jonah did eventually surrender, openly confessed his sin, and was used by God to save Nineveh, though admittedly not with a very generous and loving spirit.
I do sympathize with you, however, and hope you don’t encounter too many more of those “miserable types who just seem to want to stir up trouble”.
Steve Riches
PT on Tue, July 17, 2007
Dave,
Kudos, I appreciate the perspective you have added! You also used a phrase that triggered a strong recommendation. A great resource in helping us all deal with difficult people and situations is John Maxwell’s book, “Winning With People.” I know he has published a zillion books and that there tends to be much repetition in his books, but I believe this is his best and most valuable! (also, an easy read)
PS: I assure I have no association and will receive no royalty for my recommendation:)
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment